Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Ilford, in the room of Major Sir George Clements Hamilton, Baronet (Manor of Northstead).—[Captails Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill, Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Maidenhead Water) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Sevenoaks Water) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Tonbridge Water) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Gulag (Lochinver)) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Falmouth) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Fowey) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Glasgow Streets Sewers and Buildings Consolidation Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPER-ANNUATION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

11.7 a.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Measure is designed to amend and to extend the law relating to the superannuation of local government employés. It also consolidates and codifies the law, and it is, therefore, longer than a purely amending Bill would be. I am glad that in the new provisions legislation by reference is avoided, and I think it will be in this form more convenient to Members of the Legislature and to those who may be called upon to administer them. I hope that hon. Members have had time to look at the White Paper which, besides explaining the main principles of the Bill, indicates those provisions which are mainly re-enactments of the existing law. The main and general object of the Bill is to secure such a measure of uniformity as may reasonably be required in regard to the provision to be made by local authorities for pensions for their staffs. It requires provision to be made for the superannuation of all whole-time local government officers, and facilitates similar provision by local authorities over and above that made by the general law relating to pensions for their other employés. I think I can claim that it embodies the principle now so widely recognised in business organisations and elsewhere throughout the country of the desirability of provision being made where possible for their staffs in their old age. This Bill brings the local government service in this respect into line with the long-established practice of the Civil Service, and thus adds another measure of protection in old age to a further section of the community.
It is important in considering the provisions of this Bill to refer to the history of the matter. Local government superannuation has been a gradual but a somewhat haphazard growth. Provision has been made in special enactments for particular classes of employés, such as firemen and Poor Law and mental hospital employés, but before the War only a few

of the larger authorities had general superannuation schemes in force, and these had been authorised by local legislation. In 1919 the subject was considered by the Norman Committee, as it was called, who recall in their report that it was only the outbreak of the War which prevented its consideration five years earlier. This committee recommended the introduction of a uniform scheme, outlined certain principles as to the establishment and valuation of superannuation funds, suggested equal contributions by employers and employed, financial adjustment on transfer and matters of that kind, which have since been embodied in legislation. Parliament dealt with the matter in 1922 and decided on the principle of experimental development. In that year, it passed the Act which permitted the local authorities to adopt superannuation provisions and embodied the main principles which should govern superannuation schemes in future as propounded by the Norman Committee, which principles this Bill does not materially affect.
Another Committee sat in 1925 under the Chairmanship of Sir Amherst Selby-Bigge, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was an important Member of that Committeee. It reviewed the position with special reference to the question of compulsory superannuation, and with only one dissentient reaffirmed the principle of compulsory and uniform provision for the superannuation of local government officers. It was less unanimous in recommending compulsory superannuation for other classes of municipal employés, although a majority of the committee, seven Members dissenting,, favoured this, subject to the condition of holding a ballot of the people concerned. The committee reported in 1927, and by that time an increased number of local authorities had availed themselves of the Act of 1922. Since that date the number has still further considerably increased. At the present time the Act of 1922 has been adopted by the great bulk of the larger authorities, county councils and county boroughs, and a majority of all the local authorities numbering 944 out of 1,556, have availed themselves of the Act, and 25 have local Act schemes. On the other hand, 587 authorities have not any arrangements for superannuation.
I think that the House will agree with me when I say we have now had ample


time to judge of the efficacy of present legislation and its limitations. We have had also the benefit of many consultations with associations of local authorities and organisations representing their employés. In the result a strong demand for new legislation has manifested itself from all sides, and it has, of course, been fortified by the adoption of superannuation by the great majority of local authorities and I would particularly emphasise the obvious desirability of a measure of uniformity in the interests of the service as a whole.
This Bill has been prepared with these considerations in mind, and is designed to secure that provision shall be made by all local authorities of further facilities for superannuation. It requires superannuation provision to be made by every authority for its whole-time administrative, professional and clerical staff. It leaves to local authorities the discretion which they already possess as to the superannuation of other employés, but greatly simplifies the machinery for bringing them into superannuation, and, as I shall show, confers material benefits on all classes of superannuable employés, servants as well as officers. This is done by amending and extending the law on a number of material matters as to which experience has shown that amendment is desirable in the interests of municipal employés, and in respect of which they have frequently made a number of representations.
I should like to say a word on the distinction made in the Bill between officers and servants as regards compulsion. It is evident that in the case of officers there is a stronger case for promoting conditions which will facilitate the transfer and promotion of officers from one authority to another. Officers normally enter the Local Government Service as a career, and they look for opportunities for advancement over the whole field of Local Government Service. It is also evident that the absence of a superannuation scheme for officers often results in a restriction of the number of suitable applicants for vacant posts. These considerations do not apply with the same force in the case of other grades in the service, and I should also observe in this connection that although the SelbyBigge Committee recommended by a majority compulsory superannuation for all employés they noted that, from the point of view of the employé, the position

had been materially helped by the passing of the Contributory Pensions Act.
There are many new benefits in the Bill for employçs. It enables superannuable employés to reckon for pension purposes all their past local government service, and, so tar as it may have been nontributory service, to count it at the full rate as contributory service in return for payments which will be calculated on a prescribed actuarial basis. Again, provision is made for dealing with the aggregation of all periods of service and the rounding up of odd months, which will serve to meet a number of hard cases. The Bill will also mitigate the hardships, felt more particularly by manual workers, due to the automatic reduction of pensions consequent on a loss or diminution of wages in the last years of service. Periods of unemployment or absence on sick leave with suspension or reduction of pay—a not uncommon feature in the last years of service—will be ignored in future in calculating an employé's average remuneration during the last five years for which his pension is to be calculated. Sometimes, too, an employé, owing to age or ill health, is given light duties on lower pay, and in future he will be able to preserve his pension rights in full by continuing contributions on the former scale.
As regards a matter that has been mentioned constantly in this House, and has been the subject of questions, provision is made so that a married employé will be able, in return for a surrender of part of his pension, to secure an annuity for his widow for life; and in order that there may be no sex distinction in this matter, and that I may have a clear conscience so far as this Bill is concerned, a female employee may make similar provisions for a surviving husband. Provision is also made for transfer, with full preservation of rights, from the service of one local authority to another, including transfer to and from authorities operating local Acts—there has been difficulty about that—and transfer from service in which the employé is subject to the Asylum Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, to other local government service (with the same or another local authority) and vice versa. That, I think, meets a case which has been constantly presented by all interested in this matter. Finally, so far as bringing servants into pensions, all that will be necessary for this purpose


in the future will be an ordinary resolution of the authority, not requiring a two-thirds majority, as at present, and that resolution will specify the classes which are to be superannuable. The general machinery of the Bill is that the larger authorities with sufficiently large staffs will, as "administering authorities", have superannuation funds of their own, and that they should be liable to accept as contributors to their funds the officers and other pensionable employés of the smaller authorities who would, of course, pay equivalent contributions to the same fund.
Then I must refer to some modification of the actuarial basis of local government superannuation so far as future entrants to superannuation schemes are concerned, which is necessary in view of the change in interest rates since 1922. Hon. Members will recollect that the present rate of contribution for both officers and servants is 5 per cent. of their remuneration, with an equivalent contribution from the authority. On actuarial grounds the Committee recommended different rates for officers and servants, because the latter tend to reach their maximum early. It is estimated that, in the present circumstances, the rate of contribution needed to secure the benefits is, in total, 12 per cent. for officers and 10 per cent., as at present, for servants, and the Bill accordingly proposes to increase the rate for new entrant officers by one per cent., with a similar increase in the authorities' contribution. The Bill contemplates the minimum of interference with the various superannuation schemes established under local Acts, but if the main purpose is to be achieved, it is essential that those schemes should be extended to cover, when they do not already do so, all whole-time officers. Under Clause 26, transfer values will be payable between those "Local Act Authorities" and the other authorities. In accordance with the Committee's recommendation, there is to be a right of appeal to the Minister from the decision of an authority on questions affecting the rights and the liabilities of employés, and the Minister may, and shall if required, state a case to the High Court on any point of law arising. Special provision is made to preserve the superannuation rights of transferred Poor Law and rating employés, and any privileges

as regards rate of contribution enjoyed by them will be kept alive by this Measure. Clerks to Justices are brought within the ambit of the Bill, and registration officers are made superannuable, with special provision for reckoning past service.
A great deal of spade work will have to be done both by the Department and the local authorities, before the provisions of the Bill can be brought into operation. It is desirable that the date of operation should coincide with the beginning of the financial year, and in order to allow time for preparatory work to be completed, after consultation with the associations of local authorities, it is proposed that the appointed day under the Bill shall be 1st April, 1939. Anyone who approaches this subject today, especially introducing the Bill as I do, cannot help thinking of the services of one who was a member of this House, Sir Henry Jackson, and who introduced a Bill in 1934 dealing with these matters. He worked hard in the cause of superannuation for local government employés. I am sure that all of us recall his services, his fine character and his comradeship.
We shall have to consider in detail some of the matters which arise and I do not think we shall grudge the time and consideration which we are now giving to an important aspect of our great local government services. As I know so well, and as does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, many and weighty responsibilities rest upon those services to-day. If I might venture for once to be a prophet, I would say that those responsibilities are not likely to grow less, but are likely to be increased, because Parliament is more and more entrusting them with new duties and fresh work. It is a function of government which forms, in many ways, the vital connecting link between our people and the State. This great administrative machine not only grows in size but becomes unavoidably more complex and elaborate. Its efficiency and strength depend upon the devoted and unselfish labours of many thousands of men and women who are members of local authorities, and of whom we hear very little because they do not get much into the limelight, although they do a good deal of hard work. Secondly, but by no means least, they depend upon the


ability, devotion and service of the officers and servants of the municipalities, great and small. I believe the Bill to be another step forward in strengthening local government, making its services still more efficient and, I hope, materially improving the conditions of those who serve it.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I should like to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the service of the late Sir Henry Jackson, who, during the full term of his service in this House, showed a great interest in all matters affecting those who are employed by local authorities. I should like also to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the kind words he said about me in my unavoidable absence a few days ago.
The right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill with his accustomed skill. I am going to follow him in not entering into the details of the Measure, I will deal with what I regard as our major criticism. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not going to give him wholehearted support for his Measure—he would regard it as strange were I to do so. I have never yet known of a Bill of the right hon. Gentleman's which was not open to criticism of one kind or another. As he said, a very large field is now covered by superannuation for old age. A moral obligation rests upon local authorities, and upon all sorts of authorities, as model employers. If the system of private enterprise had fulfilled its responsibilities, it would have taken charge of its outworn workers. It did not do so. Public authorities are rightly required, by the moral opinion of the nation, to set a better example and they have done so in many respects.
The analogy is that of the Fair Wages Clause Resolution of the House of Commons, which recognised that a responsibility rests upon public authorities in the case of public contracts not to have the work done in conditions less favourable than those given by good employers. I emphasise that point of the moral responsibility, because I think it is very important. That moral responsibility for offering the best to our employés ought, in our view, to be recognised by all authorities. All their employés are entitled,

by reason of their length of service to maintenance during their old age at the end of a long term of service.
I do not propose to discuss the details of the Bill. There are many technical points on which we shall require elucidation in Committee and other points upon which we shall put forward Amendments, but I want to deal with one question of principle. We can draw no distinction between different types of public servants. A lifetime of service in the highways or cleansing department of a local authority is as valuable a contribution, and as necessary to the public well-being as that of many more highly paid officers. The right hon. Gentleman defends the distinction between officers and servants with the only argument that can be adduced, which is that it is in the interests of the public service, because of the importance of mobility, to ensure that officers can go from one local authority to another without losing their superannuation rights.
I accept that principle. The very fact that the ordinary servant is debarred from promotion in the service of the local authority, the fact that he is a fixture there, and a fixture at a low standard of life, is an argument in favour of compulsory provision for him, for he needs it more. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, people go into local government service for a career; they do not leave one job for another except for pecuniary advantage; and as they go up in the scale of income, their need for superannuation becomes less. But the ordinary servant is static; his wage is fixed, probably by the time he is 24 years of age, and in some cases earlier, practically for life, subject, perhaps, to a decline as he gets older; and clearly, for these persons, there is an even greater need for provision than in the case of the more highly paid officers. If there were to be differentiation, I should say that it ought to be through exclusion of the officers rather than through exclusion of the servants. I am not asking for that; I am not suggesting that that would be right; but I am suggesting that, if there be any justification for differentiating between these two sets of public employés, the balance is in favour of keeping the servants in the scheme as against the officers.
The position at present is that many local authorities superannuate both their


officers and their servants. The position under the present Bill is that they must in future superannuate their officers, and that they may, if they choose, superannuate their servants. In so far as servants come within the scope of the Bill, I am bound to say that there is an improvement in the Bill. That I accept. But I want to keep to the vital question of principle. The Minister of Health has told us that he has consulted the organisations of local authorities and the organisations representing employés. Those discussions, apparently, have gone on for a very considerable time, but all that he told us about them was that from all sides there was a strong demand for new legislation. He did not tell us whether those persons approve of this present Bill, and I should be very interested to know whether they do. I can speak for the organisations of employés when I say that they do not. They regard the Bill in this particular aspect with profound disappointment, and, indeed, with a measure of dismay. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman never undertook that they should be included compulsorily, but at least in their mind these lengthy discussions were carried on on the assumption that the Government were going to accept the compulsory principle.
So far as I have discussed this matter with representatives of local authorities, I find an almost unanimous view in favour of the principle of compulsion for all, because they find it difficult to resist the logic of the argument, although, as I shall point out later, it might result in financial difficulty. That is a further point. If the right hon. Gentleman could tell us that he speaks with the weight of all these people he has consulted behind him, my mind would be relieved, but I fear he can make no such statement, and he has more or less clung to the Majority Report of the Departmental Committee, of which I was a member, in the face of the advice which was tendered to him by the people whom he called into consultation. I know that at many points in the Bill he has accepted their suggestions, and I know that the organisations representing the servants have dropped a number of the proposals which they would have wished to bring forward, in order to concentrate on what they regard as the major issue. In view

of the fact that so many local authorities have already made this provision for servants, why does the right hon. Gentleman wish now to protect the other local authorities from themselves, if the prevailing feeling in local government circles and in the local government world as a whole is in favour of the principle of making no distinction between the various classes of employés?
While local authorities have recognised the claim both of officers and of servants to superannuation, they have, of course, their own difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman is becoming an expert in the art of being generous with other people's money. His new extension of the Pensions Act is going to cost him nothing. Now he introduces this Measure, and it is going to cost him nothing. It is very nice to be generous with other people's money, but it is a sign of sincerity if you pay you own proportion of the money into the fund. Nobody is going to deny the heavy burden which rests upon local authorities to-day. They have a very limited field of revenue; their resources have been clipped by Government action —for example, through derating. On the other hand, year by year local authorities have to face developing services, and, as time goes by, new burdens are placed upon them by the State, which they are anxious to fulfil for the most part, but which they find it very difficult to fulfil because of their limited finances.
My fear is that when this scheme comes into operation even for, officers—and, even in spite of the financial difficulties, I am not withdrawing a word of what I have said with regard to the entrance of servants—I fear that, when this Bill comes into operation, the effect in many areas must be a restriction on the other services of the local authorities. If they are to deal with this problem, they will not be able to deal with it by putting on increased rates, especially in certain areas of this country. There are areas where it is very difficult to collect the rates now, and in those areas the fundamental services which are the cement of the social life of those districts are going to be imperilled; the taking away of large sums of money for another scheme is bound to mean a restriction of the social services. There is, therefore, in this matter a need


for increased Exchequer grants to the local authorities. They ought to be enabled to meet the responsibilities which they recognise they ought to incur. As I have said, we shall have criticisms to make of details of the Bill later, but I want to concentrate the attention of the House on these two points.
The right hon. Gentleman wound up his speech by paying a great tribute to the local government service, a tribute which we all know to be deserved. That eulogy is extended to employés of all classes, officers and servants. I hope even now, because he has adduced no reason beyond nobility—that may be a reason for bringing in officers, but it is no reason for keeping out servants—why the scheme should not make a clean and tidy job now that he has undertaken it. I hope it is not too late yet for him to do that, and to do justice to the very large body of people on whom the efficiency of our public service considerably depends.

11.46 a.m.

Captain Elliston: As one who has been associated with municipal government for many years, I should like to thank the Minister for a Bill which must mean a great deal to the efficiency of local administration. It is true that the Act of 1922 has been adopted by a majority of local authorities, and its advantages are now being enjoyed by something like 350,000 designated officials, but there still remain 587 local authorities and 20,000 officers who are not enjoying the advantages of superannuation, and the result has been that elderly officials are retained when they are no longer really efficient for their duties, and, moreover, the best type of candidate is quite unlikely to apply for employment by a local authority when he is not to have the benefit of superannuation rights. The Bill corrects those defects, and in my opinion the result will be that you will have increased efficiency in all these public departments. I believe that local authorities as a whole will regard this as a good Bill and one which does great credit to the Minister, to the body representing local authorities who have assisted him in its preparation, and especially to the body representing local government officers, who have always done everything they can to advance the welfare of the municipal service, and to make it a

career which will attract the best men to the service of the community.
The Minister expounded the Bill very fully, but I should like to put a few points which, I hope, will be dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary. Clause 6, dealing with contributions, shows a differentiation between the percentage of remuneration payable by different categories of employés. The provision of the Clause appears 'to make a distinction, first between officers and servants and, secondly, between existing officers and new entrants. The Bill embodies the principle of funding pension liabilities and the payment of equal contributions to the fund by employers and employed. No doubt, the differentiation indicated by the Clause is justified by actuarial considerations, but it would be useful if the Parliamentary Secretary would give the House some further information as to the considerations which guided the Minister in determining the rates of contribution adopted in the Bill.
The Minister has already told us something about the provisions designed to mitigate hardship caused by the reduction of pension due to periods of unemployment or absence on sick leave in the last few years of a man's service. I am sure the House will welcome this amendment of the law to meet cases of this kind. Again, it would be helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain in a little more detail the present law and practice in this connection, and how the relevant provisions of the Bill will operate. Another provision which I am sure will commend itself to the House is that enabling a man to secure an annuity for his widow. It should mean the avoidance of hard cases, which have hitherto been too common in the case of salaried officials. I see that the details of such arrangements are to be governed by rules to be laid before the House, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some idea of the general principle to be followed in the formulation of those rules.
Finally, I am bound to express my disappointment that no provision is made for the optional grant of added years by local authorities in the case of their professional officers. I have been advocating that concession since 1922. I have some special experience of the conditions of service of medical officers. There you


have men who spend five or six years in acquiring their professional qualifications. At the end of that period, if they are wise, or if they are fortunate, they take a period of service as house physician or surgeon in a hospital, and then they have to acquire the further professional qualifications which enable them to take a public health appointment. On the top of that, and in view of the tremendously varied character of public health work in these days, when a medical officer is practically the leader of the profession in the area, and has to supervise specialist work in a number of branches, that man, if he hopes to secure an appointment, has to acquire special experience in a number of directions. He has to spend a period of residence in hospital; he has in most cases to spend a period in a tuberculosis sanatorium. He has to acquire extra experience, perhaps, in diseases of women and children and in other directions which makes him competent to direct the activities of a public health department. That means that he is usually 30 years or age or more before he can obtain his first appointment.
Owing to this late entry at a higher salary level, the contributions of these officers in relation to their pensions are much higher than those of nonprofessional officers, many of whom enter the local government service as soon as they leave school. I am hopeful that it is not too late for the Minister to consider whether he can make some concession in this matter and give local authorities the power, if they so desire, to add years, not exceeding ten, to the number which professional officers, in such circumstances as I have described, have actually served. Alternatively, I believe it is being suggested that years spent in professional training should be allowed to count as service years within the meaning of the Act.
I know the anxiety of the Minister to promote co-operation between the municipal hospitals and the great voluntary hospitals. I am told that there are Members in this House who would like to see it made possible by this Bill to provide for the interchangeability between the federated superannuation scheme of the voluntary hospitals and the superannuation scheme of local authorities. If this were practicable, it would undoubtedly facilitate the interchange of

personnel, and would do a great deal to raise the standard of the hospital services in this country. I have concentrated upon the case of medical officers, but it applies equally to other professional officers, such as architects, surveyors, engineers, and so on, men who must have a long training in order to acquire their qualifications, and who come late into the municipal service and invigorate it by bringing in experience acquired outside. It applies also to such as health visitors and school nurses, and I hope that, when the Bill goes to Committee, it will be considered whether it is possible to accept an Amendment which will allow the added years of service of these officers.
I am not willing to delay the progress of this Bill even for a few minutes. I believe that it is an excellent Bill, and an act of justice to the excellent officers who serve our local authorities, and that it is definitely to the advantage of the public to attract people of first-class ability to that service. This Bill will help to do that. It is true, as I have said, that more than 500 local authorities have not yet adopted the Act of 1922, but I believe that that was not because they failed to recognise the advantages of superannuation, but because they were unwilling to impose further burdens upon the ratepayers at a very difficult time. They look to this House of Commons to accept responsibility in this matter, and I hope we shall lose no time in carrying this Bill and further enhancing the prospects of those who adopt the career of the municipal service.

11.58 a.m.

Mr. W. H. Green: With so many of the speeches which the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Health, addresses to this House, we must, in all quarters, find ourselves frequently in agreement. Some of the sentiments which he expressed this morning particularly appealed to many of us, as, for instance, his tribute to the work that local authorities are carrying on up and down the country. I sometimes feel that the value and unselfish nature of their work is not adequately recognised. It has been said that the British people have shown their genius for governing in the sphere of local government, and I am not sure but that they are right. Further, I am sure that few will disagree with the well-deserved tribute which the Minister paid to the late Sir Henry Jackson. It was my privilege


to sit with him for many years on the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, and I know that among the things that were dearest to him were some of the provisions contained in this Bill. It is very regrettable that he has not lived to see the day when the Bill is introduced.
I often feel that the Minister of Health is the most fortunate Minister on the Front Bench. By the very nature of his office he has to introduce Measures, the great part of which must appeal to all of us. With equal truth it can be said that in nearly every case, not only are the Measures extremely belated which he introduces, but they are spoilt by the niggardly spirit that creeps into many of these provisions.
The Minister has said that this Measure is welcomed by the associations which speak for local government officers. I know that the general principles are welcomed by such bodies as the National Association of Local Government Officers, and that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association in the main approve of the provisions of the Bill. I am pretty certain that a great welcome awaits the Bill in municipal circles. It is long overdue, and will be heartily welcomed, of that I am sure, but its welcome would be even greater and more widespread if certain provisions were included, and if certain other provisions that are included were modified. It has been an anomaly which has existed far too long that a large number of our local authorities have no superannuation scheme. The hardship which is being inflicted upon many local government officers is well known to many of us. They may have put in years with a local authority that had a pension scheme and have shifted to another authority that had no superannuation scheme, and all these years have been lost.
The first of the two new principles which this Bill embodies is that of compulsion. I am sure that we shall all agree that it ought to be obligatory on every local authority to have a superannuation scheme for its people. The second principle, about which some of us are rather doubtful, is that the Bill drops—and in this it differs from all previous Measures dealing with the subject—the designation of established officers. In my view that is a grievance, and I hope that the

Minister will, between now and the later stages of the Bill, find some way of dealing with this question. The controversy in recent years, as we all know, has raged round the question of compulsion, and I think that we shall all be pleased that the Minister has dealt with this question, and that it is to be incorporated in the Bill.
There are three points which I would like to bring before the attention of the Minister, not in too critical a spirit, but in the hope that they may carry some weight with the Minister in his future conduct of this Measure. The Minister impressed upon the House the point that these local government associations are favourable to the Bill. I speak in the main at the moment for the largest municipal body in the country. I refer to the London County Council. I have had consultation with the officers of that body upon this particular Measure. I regret that there is practically no distinction in the Bill drawn between permanent and temporary employés of a council, and I believe that that is a positive weakness. There is a provision in Clause 39 which mentions the question of exemption of certain casual classes, but, in my view, that is not nearly wide enough and will require to be very carefully dealt with during the later stages.
Local authorities, perforce, engage a good many temporary people in respect of town planning, slum clearance and housing schemes, and I would ask whether it is the intention in the Bill that, where these people may be taken on for three or four months, they are to be included in the superannuation scheme. If so, I would ask the House to appreciate the difficulties that may arise. There is, first, the increased amount of labour which will be entailed on the local authority in arranging for the entrance into superannuation schemes of people who are going to be with them only two, three, four, five or even six months. The majority of these people are taken from the unemployed market, and it means that immediately they are taken on, possibly with no resources, 6 per cent. of their salary is stopped for superannuation. It may be said that when their employment terminates they can get hack their contribution, with 3 per cent. interest. Yes, but I understand that there is a period of 12 months which must elapse before they get back their contributions, which is a pretty considerable hardship upon people


placed as are these whom I have indicated. I gather from the terms of the Bill that the local authority will hold these contributions in case the individual concerned obtains employment under another local authority within 12 months, in which case a transfer will take place. To withhold the contributions for that period will be an injustice to many who are placed as these people are.
The other point that I should like to emphasise has already been made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), and in the view of many local authorities it is exceedingly important. I refer to the question of increased expenditure. The local Government Act, 1929, Section 135, says:
It is hereby declared that it is the intention of this Act that, in the event of material additional expenditure being imposed on any class of local authorities by reason of the institution of a new public health or other service after the commencement of this Act, provision should be made for increased contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman will probably say that this is not a new or increased health service, but I maintain that it is a new or increased pension service, and it can without any great stretch of the imagination be held to come within the Section which I have quoted. If the Bill is to be passed in its present form, it will bring 6,000 temporary people into the superannuation scheme of the London County Council, which will cost £70,00 next year, the first year of the operation of the Bill, if it becomes an Act. That is a very considerable burden to inflict upon the ratepayers of London without any compensating grant towards it, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether there will not have to be a halt called in this general policy of the Ministry of continually and progressively imposing burdens on local authorities and leaving them in every case to carry the baby. The time will come when the local authorities will have to take serious note of these methods, which are gradually increasing their burdens.
My further point has already been made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield, and that is the unfair and arbitrary distinction which is drawn between officers and servants. I can speak feelingly in this respect, because the London

County Council have brought a very large proportion of their servants into the superannuation scheme. There is no ground in equity and fairness for discriminating against a man on the ground of his occupation being of a different character or on the ground that his wage or salary is at a little different rate from that of another person. We suggest that the Bill would be immensely improved by making it equally compulsory that all servants, including manual labour, employed by a local authority who are doing just as valuable and just as necessary work as any of the technical staff, should be included under the scheme.
In connection with the temporary side, the Bill will affect servants or officials of local authorities who are on probationary service. The London County Council has 3,400 nurses on probationary service, and I gather that this Bill will mean that these probationary nurses will immediately be placed under the superannuation scheme of the County Council. It is well known to those who have experience of this sort of work that there are very considerable changes in the personnel of probationary nurses in our institutions. They come for a month or two, and then perhaps they do not like the work, or they find themselves unsuited for it, or the local authority find that they are not suitable, and they drift out. There is a great amount of coming and going in the ranks of probationers, particularly in the nursing profession, and a hardship will be imposed if the 3,500 probationary nurses to whom I have referred are compelled immedately to be placed under the superannuation scheme. The same argument will apply throughout the country with regard to probationary servants. It is necessary to find some better definition of "temporary" and "established" in order to avoid many difficulties.
Another point affects the health visitors engaged by local authorities. I am delighted to think that at long last the retiring age of health visitors is to be fixed at 60. Those of us who have had years of association with local authorities realise that it has been a tragedy for many years to note the position in which health visitors are placed in their advancing years. Their work is of a very strenuous character, if they carry


it out faithfully as they generally do, and after the age of 60 they find it very difficult to perform their duties. Everyone, therefore, will welcome their compulsory retirement at the age of 60, but it carries with it a great grievance for the health visitors, because to qualify for the maximum pension they must have put in 4o years' service. That will be well nigh impossible under the conditions of the Bill. It is very seldom that a health visitor is appointed under the age of 25. Years of experience are required in order to qualify, and it is the exception rather than the rule that a nurse is appointed as a health visitor under 25. That means that at the most they can put in only 35 years service. I wonder whether some compensation might be provided with regard to the five years' service, which might be incorporated in the Bill. In the main, the Bill will be welcomed by all who are interested in local government.

12.12 p.m.

Mr. Smedley Crooke: Any Bill which gives the workers security late in life will always receive the support of hon. Members of this House, and as the Bill we are discussing aims at giving that security, I for one, welcome it. But while welcoming the provisions of the Bill, there is one feature in it which concerns the ex-service community to, which I should like to refer. Many local government officials served in His Majesty's Forces during the Great War, and it is, I believe, a principle which has always been supported by members of this House, that service during the Great War should count for pension purposes in superannuation schemes, I have carefully perused the Bill, but can find no Clause applying this principle to local government officers.
The British Legion, whose chief work is looking after the interests of ex-service men, is naturally interested in this matter, and I am sure that their view will find support from members of all parties—that service in His Majesty's Forces during the Great War should count for pension purposes. I note that on page 36, line 21, "service", the length of which is one of the material factors in calculating a superannuation allowance, is defined as
service rendered to any local authority
I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary, or whoever replies, would in-

form the House whether this phrase is intended to include a period during which a local government employé served in His Majesty's Forces during the Great War, and subsequently returned to local government employment. I have little doubt that that is the intention, and it may be that I have overlooked some words in the Bill which give effect to it. I should be glad for some assurance on the point, which I am confident commands the sympathy of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I feel sure that the Minister intends that this general principle shall apply, but it would relieve the minds of many ex-service men if a definite and clear announcement was made on the matter by the Minister this afternoon.

12.16 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I do not want to delay the passage of a Bill which has met with such general and cordial assent from both sides of the House. Such criticisms as have been made can be elaborated in Committee. I would like to express my own feelings that this Measure is something bigger than many would realise, and that we are busy on a really great constructive effort; we are trying at this stage of civilisation to construct a big business in local government service. This is one brick or one bit of cement that we are adding to that edifice, and it is a big advance that we hope to see during the next 20 or 30 years. What I wish to emphasise is that the Civil Service has in Government Departments a position that is unequalled in any country of the world. It recruits its officers largely from the universities. At the University of Oxford to-day 50 per cent. of the undergraduates are in receipt of public funds, and many who have won very high academic distinctions have come from the elementary and secondary schools of the country. That is as it should be in a democracy. These young men work their way up by academic successes, and at Oxford and Cambridge there is no distinction of rank or origin in awarding academic honours.
Among Civil servants you have men of the very highest possible attainments. Those of us who are interested in local government or public service generally want to get the same type of men into local government service. There is every reason to look forward to it. There is a limited number of appointments under the Government now and a very large


number of men who are well trained are unable to get into the Civil Service. We want to attract them into local government service, and we must use every opportunity for removing the small points that tend to prevent those who have Worked their way up by great academic distinction, from adopting local government service as a calling. One of the great obstacles hitherto has been the absence of superannuation in local government service, but this Bill helps to meet that difficulty.
There is another point which this Bill helps to meet, though the Bill does not do far enough. Many of these people, especially those in the trained services of which we have heard to-day, go into voluntary service. We know that under a democracy voluntary service by degrees works up to public service. If a young man or woman becomes a health visitor or a midwife or a medical man or an engineer, he or she may go first into voluntary service, but then comes an opportunity for going into public service, and perhaps he or she goes back again into voluntary service later. There are points in the Bill in which the transition from the one to the other might be made more easy. One difficulty in public offices is that they cannot depend always upon voluntary services. Voluntary associations are run with great public spirit, but for a continuation of service financial provisions and a superannuation fund are necessary.
Let us go all out with this Bill and try to get over the impediment to recruitment for local government service. We have heard the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston) as regards the technical officers, and the points regarding medical officers of health have been brought forward by the British Medical Association for the last 10 years. We have heard a well-informed speech from the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Green) regarding other points in the Bill. A point that I want to raise relates to the women-public health officers, who have asked me to deal with the case of health visitors and similar persons. Another point relates to the midwives. They are in a special and peculiar position because, owing to the Midwives Act, the voluntary associations and the public authorities have been brought into definite official

relation in order to provide a permanent midwifery service. As the Minister of Health said when he introduced the Midwives Bill, we want to use every means of bringing those two activities together. The arrangements in this Bill are not satisfactory for bringing in the midwives who, while working under associations, in villages, where they are not employed for the whole of their time, are at the same time under a contract with the local authority, the County Council, under the Midwives Act, to provide a midwifery service. Yet they do not come fully into the superannuation scheme of the Bill.
Without elaborating the point I would ask the Minister to give the most earnest consideration to the requirements of the midwives' voluntary associations, to enable the midwives to secure the full advantages of superannuation. It is difficult to recruit the service of midwives. To many it is a most unpleasant and unattractive service, and the difficulty is in recruiting young girls into it as we wish to do. Yet it is on that service that we depend very largely for the improvement of the maternity services of the country. I wish to give my most cordial support to this Bill as a constructive measure for building up a great local government service.

12.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I hope that every Bill of which it is my duty to answer questions will have as favourable a reception as this Bill. There have been some major criticisms from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it is with those major criticisms, for instance those of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), on what he called questions of principle, that I would deal first. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Bill did not apply to all employés. He objected strongly that servants are exempted from the compulsory provisions of the Bill. The arguments which induced the Government to come to this decision have been fully stated by my right hon. Friend and, therefore, I will not go into them again. I suggest 'that the right hon. Member for Wakefield is arguing as if these servants are quite un-provided for in the matter of pensions, and, therefore, I would remind him of the Contributory Pensions Act by which these employes come under the ordinary


pensions scheme of the country. I would further call his attention to the fact that there is nothing in the Bill which limits the right of a public authority, if it so desire, to bring in servants as well as officers. The right hon. Gentleman says that the majority of authorities are in favour of so doing. In that case there is nothing to prevent them. All that they are required to do is to pass an ordinary resolution. In the old days a two-thirds majority was necessary, but now it can be done by passing a simple resolution and the question of bringing servants into the superannuation scheme is really easier than it was before. The right hon. Member mildly taunted my right hon. Friend with the fact that no assistance is given from the Exchequer towards the cost of their superannuation schemes, but it is obvious that such expenditure will attract a proportion of the block grant. That is a question, however, which can be better discussed on the Committee stage.
We have had an impressive speech from the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Green) who speaks with particular experience on these problems. He raised the interesting point of the distinction between permanent and temporary officers. That is a matter which has received very careful examination. It has been very fully discussed with the representatives of local authorities and their employés, but no practical suggestion has emerged which embodies the necessary safeguards for the officers concerned. These safeguards are, first, that an officer should not be deprived of his pension rights because he is labelled "temporary" or "unestablished," although in fact he continues for many years in the local authority's service; secondly, that officers appointed bona fide on a temporary basis, and who subsequently continue in the same or some other authority's employ, should not be penalised; he should not be required when he becomes pensionable to pay contributions in respect of early years of service which the authorities decided not to collect during those years. My right hon. Friend will be willing to consider any practical suggestions which embody these important safeguards.
The hon. Member for Deptford also made a plea with regard to health visitors and nurses and their position under the

Bill. I think his argument, and also the argument of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), was that the provision by which nurses and health visitors will retire at 60 instead of 65 ought not to be allowed to result in any proportionate reduction of their pension. Any appeal on behalf of nurses is sure of sympathy in every quarter of the House. Of few professions can it be said more truly that their inspiration is service, not self. I would only say this, that the Clause which deals with the position of nurses is based on the recommendation of the Selby-Bigge Committee, and the hon. Member will find on pages 40 and 41 the arguments which have led the Government to come to their decision in the Bill.

Mr. Green: Does that mean that the Government will consider some means of meeting the point?

Mr. Bernays: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to continue my argument. I would point out that the right hon. Member for Wakefield was a member of this committee, and although he dissented from some of its recommendations, I am not aware that he made any reservations on this particular issue. Obviously, this is a matter which can very well be considered in Committee. My right hon. Friend has already had an intimation of a desire on the part of the interests concerned to come and see him, and, of course, he will be glad to see them and receive any representations between now and the Committee stage.
The hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston) raised the point as to why in Clause 6 there is a differentiation in the rates of contribution as between officers and servants. Under the Act of 1922 a uniform rate of 5 per cent. was fixed for all employés brought within its provisions. This question was considered by the Selby-Bigge Committee, and it was urged before them that the remuneration of an officer usually increases automatically or by promotion from the beginning to the end of his service, and he is pensioned on the average remuneration of the last five years of his service, when his remuneration is obviously at the highest. On the other hand, a workman receives wages which soon reach their maximum and


remain at the same level for many years. Accordingly, a workman's contribution paid throughout on a flat basis of remuneration, brings into the superannuation fund a greater sum in relation to the pension he draws than does that of an officer. Since the same scale of pension is applicable to both classes of employés, a smaller percentage rate of contribution should be sufficient in the case of a workman than in the case of an officer.
The hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Crooke) asked whether the word "service" in connection with a local authority would also include war service, and he said that he could find nothing in the Bill which satisfies him on that point. Parliament dealt with this matter in 1916 in the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act of that year, and I am advised that Section 3 of that Act only covers the case of persons who were under superannuation schemes at that time, and, of course, we are now amending an Act which was not then on the Statute Book. If there is any doubt on the question, I am authorised to say that my right hon. Friend will be prepared in the Committee stage to place the question beyond any doubt at all, that "service" does include war service. Many other questions have been raised, many complicated questions, and I think it will be appropriate to deal with them in Committee. I hope the House now feels that it approves sufficiently of the general principle of the Bill to be able without further discussion to give it a Second Reading.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

(a) to consolidate the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1934, with amendments empowering the Board of Trade, for the purpose of establishing or of encouraging trade or any branch of trade between the United Kingdom and any country, to make arrangements for giving to, or for the benefit of, any person, firm, or company carrying on

business in the United Kingdom guarantees in connection with the export to any country of goods not being munitions of war, but so that the aggregate amount of the liability of the Board in respect of such guarantees and in respect of guarantees given under the said Acts shall not at any time exceed the sum of fifty million pounds;
(b) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in connection with such arrangements or under the said Acts; and to provide that in the event of any amount required for fulfilling any guarantee given in pursuance of such arrangements or under the said Acts not being paid out of moneys provided by Parliament it shall be charged on, and issued out of, the Consolidated Fund;
(c) to provide for payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Board of Trade in connection with any such guarantees as aforesaid or in connection with any credits granted under the said Acts."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. R. S. Hudson.]

12.35 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): It would, perhaps, be convenient to hon. Members if I gave a very brief sketch of the history of this particular Department. In 1919 the Government of the day were very anxious, as might be expected, to do everything possible to re-establish as quickly as possible this country's export trade, and among the measures that they took was one empowering the Board of Trade to make advances to exporters in respect of the value of orders shipped to certain countries, particularly those in Central and South Eastern Europe, where financial and commercial conditions had, of course, been completely disorganised by the War. The advantage taken of that Measure was very small, and therefore in 1921, a different method was tried —that of guaranteeing bills drawn by traders. Judging by the response between 1921 and 1926, that method did not seem to meet the requirements of export traders in this country. A Committee was set up to consider the matter, and as a result of its report, the system of guaranteeing bills drawn by traders was replaced by a standard form of contract which in its essentials, corresponded to an insurance policy. That scheme was very much more successful, and the Select Committee on Estimates, in 1928, reported that the facilities then granted by the Export Credits Department were of substantial advantage to the traders of this country. They were in favour of


the continuance of that work, they suggested that commercial accounts should be published every year to show the actual results of trading and they were particularly anxious that the Department should be made entirely self-supporting. The Government accepted those recommendations, and certain changes in the Department's organisation took effect from 1930.
The essence of the guarantee which is given by the Department in favour of the exporter is that, in return for a premium paid by him, the Department will guarantee him against 75 per cent. of any loss that he may incur as a result of failure to receive payment from his buyer, whether that failure is due to a default of the buyer or to some interference with the ordinary channels of payment arising out of exchange restrictions imposed by the Government of the country in which the buyer lives. Two methods are followed. By the first method, the Department issues what is called a comprehensive guarantee under which the exporter in this country asks for cover for the whole of his turnover, the Government Department then guaranteeing 75 per cent. of losses arising from the insolvency of any of his buyers abroad.
The second method is known as the transfer risk. Exporters in this country, provided they sell in sterling and not in the currency of the country of the buyer, are guaranteed against the risk of frozen debts. So much for the machinery. If hon. Members will look at the White Paper which was issued under the heading "Memorandum Explaining the Financial Resolution," they will see that in the last four years the traders of this country have been taking advantage of these facilities to an increasing extent. For example, in 1933–34, we covered £7,500,000; in 1934–35, £15,000,000: in 1935–36, £20.500,000, and in 1936–7, the figure had risen to £35,000,000. I would like to emphasize that all that business has been done, in accordance with the suggestion of the Estimates Committee in 1928, at no cost to the Exchequer, and over the period there has been a slight profit which has been paid into the Exchequer.

Mr. Lewis: What was that profit?

Mr. Hudson: I will find out and let the hon. Member know. The Committee will also note that at the present moment

we are working subject to Statutory limitations both as to date and amount, arising from the fact that at the beginning, quite rightly, the Department was regarded as experimental. The limitation as to date is that no guarantee shall be issued after March, 1940, and no guarantee shall be issued in any case which will not expire by March, 1950. The limitation as to amount is £26,000,000. I think the experience of the last few years has proved that this Department may now be properly regarded as part of the permanent trade facilities available in this country for the assistance of British exporters, and it is for that reason that I am now asking the Committee to sanction the abolition of the limitation as to the date. As regards the limitation of the amount, the figures I have quoted show that traders in this country are taking advantage of this scheme to an increasing extent, and the position now is that if something is not done we shall have reached the permissible limit of £26,000,000 and shall be compelled drastically to curtail the facilities which we are at present able to offer to British exporters.
The facilities cover, in the main, consumable goods, where the credit required is comparatively short—three months or so—and naturally the liability soon runs off. There is a further development which, I think, is of considerable value, that is to say, medium-term guarantees for credits extending from one year to five years, which are naturally rather shorter than the credits available in the case of a long-term loan, but are at the same time considerably longer than those normally required for consumable goods. It has been found that these medium-term guarantees are of great value to traders in this country in that they enable them to do business with foreign Governments, and the goods covered by these medium-term guarantees range from an order for a single motor truck to one for a complete iron and steel plant. I hope I have said enough to show the Committee that there are great advantages in continuing this work, and to justify me in asking for the limit of £26,000,000 to be raised to £50,000,000.
We propose, also, if the Committee pass this Financial Resolution, to take advantage of the opportunity to consolidate the existing powers of the Department which at present are scattered over many Acts


of Parliament. Apart from the original Act of 1919, Acts were passed in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1929, 193o and 1934. We propose to bring in a Bill to consolidate those Acts and at the same time to make one or two minor alterations and modifications which our experience has shown to be useful and desirable. It would be out of Order to go into the details of those modifications now, but I will, of course, explain them fully when we come to discuss the Bill. It will, perhaps, suffice to say here first that they will deal, with a change in the Title of the Act. Secondly, they will widen somewhat the scope of the scheme as to the firms whom we are allowed to help and the goods which we are allowed to cover. They will also enable us to cover expenditure in the countries of the buyers, where that expenditure is a necessary part of the placing of contracts for capital works abroad with exporters in this country. Finally, in order to make the cover granted by our guarantees formally complete, we propose to provide that if the emergency arises any losses shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund in so far as they are not met out of moneys voted by Parliament.
That is a brief review of what we propose. I would like to add something on the question of the continued need for the existence of this Department. In 1919, the Department was set up originally in order to help British firms to overcome and withstand the difficulties and hazards attending international trade as a result of the disorganisation caused by the War. Many of those difficulties have disappeared and others have diminished with the passage of time, but I am afraid that their place has been taken by others, different in nature perhaps, but none the less serious in the obstacles to trade which they present. The Department is, I think, required to help in getting over those difficulties. Earlier Debates this week have shown that agreement exists on all sides of the House of Commons as to the necessity for not merely maintaining but increasing our export trade. I think I shall have the general agreement of hon. Members on the proposition that, while times are good, we ought to neglect no opportunity of broadening the foundations of that export trade, so that if the time comes, as some people anticipate it

may come in two or three years, when the home demand decreases, we shall have laid those foundations on proper lines, to enable openings to be found abroad to compensate for any decrease in the home demand.
In my opinion the newer and lighter industries which have developed in this country in recent years, will particularly need those new openings. Industries of that type will need our assistance, because they have not had the long-accumulated experience of the creditworthiness of buyers abroad, which older-established firms and businesses possess. While the newer and lighter industries, therefore, will definitely need our assistance, the heavier industries, as I have already said, find these medium term guarantees of great advantage. In two or three years time, I believe, they will find those arrangements of even greater benefit if, as some anticipate, the home demand decreases. I submit to the Committee that to deprive ourselves at this moment of a weapon which has proved valuable for the last few years and is likely to prove even more valuable in a few years time, a weapon which has been forged and used at no cost to the Exchequer, would be exceedingly foolish. Therefore, with great confidence I commend the Resolution to the Committee.

12.51 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I believe that this is the first occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has made a speech to us in his new capacity, and he will allow me to tender him my congratulations upon his promotion to the office which he now holds. I would like to couple with those congratulations an expression of pleasure at the extreme lucidity of his speech, and the fact that he has been able to explain the provisions of this proposal to us without too much attention to notes, which often mars the effectiveness and clarity of speeches made from the Government Bench. I wish also to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the fact that he holds an office concerning the work of which there is little controversy between the two sides in this Committee. It has not in the past caused any divergencies of opinion between the party represented on the benches opposite and the party represented on this side, except on one or two matters concerning the extension of


this proposal, and the necessity for this has now been admitted on all sides. In fact, this export credit scheme has been built up by Governments of both parties. Successive Governments as they came into office have co-operated in working out and extending this scheme, and therefore no party controversy arises on this subject, and certainly, from our point of view, none arises in relation to the proposed extension.
We welcome the valuable work of the Department since its inception. We are glad to note the particulars set out in the White Paper showing the great progress made in the use of these facilities during the last few years. I confess that when I first saw these figures I was astonished that the growth had been so rapid. In 1933–34 the value of the exports covered by the guarantees was only £7,500,000, but in 1936–37, three years later, it amounted to over £35,000,000—an almost five-fold increase in three years. We on these benches share the view of the Minister that that growth is a healthy sign. It proves indisputably that the traders of this country welcome and make full use of this scheme, which successive Governments have built up and put into operation.
The Minister comes here to-day and asks us, in view of the success of the scheme, that the obstacles to its further growth should be removed, and I cannot understand anyone, recognising the value of this facility and recognising that so far from being a cost to the Exchequer it has actually brought in revenue, being so churlish as to deny the Minister the opportunity of enlarging these proposals in such ways as may be necessary. This afternoon we are concerned only with the Money Resolution, and although the Minister sketched out to us briefly what the Bill will cover, the actual details will have to be filled in, and we shall not be able to judge precisely what it is intended to do until we see the Bill before us. But in so far as I understand what the Bill is to do, I do not think the Minister need fear any opposition from this side of the House; on the contrary, it should receive our welcome. The proposal to remove the limit of date seems to me quite sound, and the extension to 50,000,000 also seems rendered necessary by the fact that the facilities in use are

already pressing hardly upon the £26,000,000 which has been the figure up-to-date.
With regard to the question of putting the charge on the Consolidated Fund, I understand that it is, as it were, painting the lily, giving added assurance to the bona fides of this House, and making sure that future Houses of Commons will not refuse what it is the intention of the present House to grant; but we shall no doubt have an opportunity of disussing that matter more particularly when the Bill is introduced. As I said before, the Department of Overseas Trade is one in regard to which there has been a very small amount of cross purposes between the two sides of the House, and this Bill is certainly not one which we shall have any desire to obstruct or to oppose. This Money Resolution, which is the first stage in the introduction of that Bill, will therefore have our full support.

12.58 p.m.

Major Hills: I want to add a very few words in support of this Resolution. I had the honour of succeeding Colonel Sir Sidney Peel as Chairman of the Committee to which my right hon. Friend has just referred, which was set up in 1925. Colonel Peel, as he then was, was sent to China on Government business at that time, and I took his place. That Committee practically formed the scheme which has been so successfully operated. I will not refer to its earlier history, for it is rather an unhappy one. It filled a gap perhaps in the post-war conditions, but a good deal of money was lost there-under. Since the new scheme, initiated in 1926, has been in operation, a profit has been made by the Exchequer, and very great assistance has been given to business men in this country. We came to two conclusions as to the form which assistance should take. The first was insurance up to 75 per cent. of the loss to the exporter. We felt that obviously the exporter ought to bear some part of the loss, but we insured him against three-quarters of the loss, and that insurance was given without recourse to him. The second form of assistance that we recommended was a guarantee by the State of the bills which he received for the goods exported, a guarantee up to 75 per cent. or so, but here there was recourse to the exporter, if the buyer failed to pay him. The exporter got the advantage that he could negotiate that bill with his bank.
The business has been extremely well conducted, and I wish to pay a strong tribute to the branch of the Civil Service that is conducting the export credits scheme. It has been very useful. It has filled a gap between the schemes that were too speculative for anybody to guarantee and, at the top of the scale, schemes wherein the exporter of the goods could get assistance from his bank. There was a real gap there, and this scheme, which was initiated by the Committee in 1926, showed that insurance could cover those classes of cases and cover them without risk to the State. We were told at starting by some of the witnesses that there was no such middle land and that export schemes were either good or bad, that if they were good, the banks would guarantee them, and that if they were bad, they were not worth having. The experience of the Export Credits Department has disproved that contention and shown that there is this middle land where guarantees are safe and where they are extremely useful and can be given without loss to the State.
I entirely approve of the raising of the limit from ·26,000,000 to ·50,000,000, but there is just one question that I should like to ask my hon. Friend. The original Act only authorised the giving of guarantees in connection with the export of goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, excluding munitions of war. In the Resolution on the Paper the exclusion of munitions of war remains, but the limitation of guarantees to goods manufactured in this country is not included. Is it intended to extend the guarantee to the export of all goods? I agree that there is a strong case for that, but, of course, it is extending the intention and operation of the original Act, and I should like an explanation of it. I believe that trade in goods not manufactured in this country is a valuable trade, and there may be a strong case for extending the guarantee to cover that class of business. Finally, may I join with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in congratulating my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, whose career I have always followed with admiration and sympathy? I am delighted to see him in his present post, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that he has made a very good beginning.

1.5 p.m.

Miss Ward: I also, should like to offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, and I hope he will lend sympathetic consideration to the points that I have to raise. We are all impressed with the valuable work which the Export Credits Department has done, and we hope that with an extension of its powers it will prove even more beneficial to industries in this country than it has been in the past. I rise to make a comment on behalf of one industry which, owing to a decision of the Cabinet, has not up to the present been able to take any benefit from the Export Credits Department, but which feels now, particularly with regard to its future, that it is entitled to the same consideration as other industries. I refer to shipbuilding. There is no provision in the Bill which prevents the granting of credits to shipbuilders in the same way as to other industrialists, but ever since the withdrawal of the Trade Facilities Act the Cabinet has taken up the position that it is not in the interests of industry in this country that shipbuilders should partake of the benefits of this provision.
I will give an illustration. A few years ago Poland wished to build two important transatlantic liners in this country at a time when shipbuilding here was at its lowest ebb, when our skilled men had had no employment for many years and there were practically no orders to be obtained. The shipbuilding industry of this country was very anxious to take this order, but it was refused because no guarantee or credit could be given to the industry on the ground that it was not desirable to add to the surplus world tonnage. I spent a long time going from one Government department to another. I informed the Board of Trade I understood that if an order were not placed in this country it would go to Italy. I was told by the Board of Trade that that kind of story has been heard before, and they were of opinion that if we did not grant facilities to shipbuilders in this country these two liners would never be built. Anything that I said naturally made no impression on the Board of Trade, but the fact remains that these transatlantic liners were built by Italy, and they are now sailing on the high seas. Poland paid Italy in coal, and as far as I can see there was no advantage of any


kind to this country. What is far worse, Italy has now got orders from Poland for shipbuilding which she is likely to continue to obtain, and Poland has got her coal into the Italian markets in which previously we had a great deal of trade. There is still the increase in world tonnage, and the workers to suffer were not only the shipyard workers of this country, but the miners as well. I put that forward as an illustration of the fact that whether the surplus tonnage argument is logical or not, we have been a loser all round.
Years have gone on. It is true that the shipbuilding industry is looking up considerably but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we are not only concerned with laying the foundations of trade for the present, but with laying the foundations of trade for the future. At the beginning of this year we were in negotiation with Turkey for an order to build 15 ships—a very valuable order. I did not take it that the ships were to be run in competition with this country, because some of them included ferry boats to be used on the Bosphorus. We have made every attempt to induce the Overseas Trade Department to regard our claim for credit facilities as substantial, but up to the moment we have not succeeded, and eight of those ships have gone to Germany. It was not a question of price. Our shipbuilders are to be congratulated on the fact that their price was better than that at which Germany were prepared to build. Turkey, however, had had a difficult time financially, and consequently was not in a position to accept the whole financial responsibility of paying for such a large order immediately. The result was that eight of these ships went to Germany. We continued to negotiate, but the Government remained adamant, and subsequently the rest of the order went to Germany. I cannot see what advantage there can be to anybody in the world except Germany. There are other orders coming from Turkey to this country, and I am hopeful of persuading my hon. Friend to reconsider the whole position with regard to shipbuilding.
The other point that may be argued is that we should not give guarantees for the building of ships which will run in competition with the shipowners of this country. I agree that there is probably a substantial point in that argument. I would point out, however, that a large

proportion of other orders which have been guaranteed have been for things which are, in any event, going to be in competition with other industries in this country. I would refer my hon. Friend to the agreement which has just been signed between Turkey and the iron and steel industry in this country. I simply cannot understand why it should be any worse for this country to build ships for other countries which will run in competition with the ships of this country than for us to guarantee, provide and set up iron and steel works in Turkey which will operate in the world markets, presumably in competition with the iron and steel industry in this country.
We have recently sent out one of our colleagues as chairman of the Export Credits Department in China. Am I not right in saying that some of the assistance which we are, presumably, to give to industrialists in China in one way or another, such as textile machinery and things of that kind, will be used in competition with certain manufacturing interests in this country? The whole basis of argument which has been used against shipbuilding could equally be argued against the credits which are given for other industries in many instances, except in the one point of surplus world tonnage. As long as the tonnage is added to the world, I do not see that we are assisting by not building it ourselves. We like, however, to act according to tradition and, as we argue that surplus tonnage should not be produced, to say that we cannot very well produce it ourselves. There are wider considerations than that to be taken into account.
There is one other point which, I think, is of importance. In a recent speech the chairman of Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson specifically referred to the difficulties with regard to export credits. He stressed the point which was stressed by my hon. Friend to-day and has been emphasised on many occasions by Mr. Runciman as President of the Board of Trade, that we have to lay foundations for the future. We know very well that many of the difficulties of our shipbuilding industry in the past few years have been due to the fact that many countries which previously were not competitors in shipbuilding have started building ships of their own. There are now shipyards in Holland, in Sweden,


and in Italy, and we know that nearly every Government is subsidising the shipyards of its country. We are not asking for that, but only for the same kind of help, the same kind of credit, to be available for this one important industry as is being given to other industries. I would refer my hon. Friend to the speech made by the chairman of Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson on this very important point, and I hope that after mature consideration he will agree that the provisions of this Bill shall be extended to that industry.
We who represent the shipbuilding industry—practically, if not technically—feel that we have had a very hard deal. It is important that we should continue to be the nation which builds ships for foreign countries. When our rearmament programme has been carried out we shall be in the same position as we were a few years ago, depending upon shipbuilding orders from foreigners, and if foreign countries which have been our customers are tied up with financial supports and subsidies which they have got from other foreign shipbuilding countries there will not be the slightest chance of our getting back into their markets. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will give real and grave consideration to this point, and that he will be able to persuade the Cabinet to lift this ban and to give us what we think is our right: equal terms with the other big industrial undertakings in this country.

1.18 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I was glad to hear from the report given to us this morning by the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department how useful this system of export guarantees is proving and how, in consequence, demands for the facilities are increasing. I think it argues a certain lack of enterprise on the part of the City of London in general, and the banks in particular, because if the Government can carry on this business without making a loss, I should have thought that some of our great financial institutions ought to have been able to undertake it and to make a modest profit. But the gap did in fact exist and the Government, with general approval, stepped in to fill it. I doubt whether any member of this Committee would object to the contention of the Secretary of the Overseas Trade

Department that the time has now come for the introduction of a Bill to consolidate the various Measures dealing with these matters, but before we agree to this Financial Resolution we are entitled to ask for a little further information.
This system of export guarantees is, as has been explained, in effect a system of insurance, and in all insurance business two things have to be borne in mind if it is to be conducted properly. The first is that the premiums collected should be greater than the claims paid and the expenses incurred, and the second is that the risks of the business should be so evenly spread that there will be no fear that some one heavy loss at a future time may upset the calculations which have been made. As to the point about income from premiums covering the claims and expenses, the Memorandum circulated to explain the Financial Resolution is not very informative. It merely states that these guarantees have not involved any charge on the taxpayers, as the premiums received had exceeded the claims paid and the administrative expenses. That might indicate a profit of a few hundred pounds or a profit of millions. When I made an interjection just now the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he would give us the correct figure, and that he thought it was in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. I think a figure of that kind on the information given to us, would be not unreasonable.
I would point out, however, that whatever the figure—let us assume that it is £1,000,000—it does not tell the whole story, because it takes no account of cases in which importers have failed to meet their obligations and are in arrears with their payments but in which the Government have not yet paid claims. I understand that on 31st March last there was under this head some £210,000 which should have been paid to the exporters of this country. It is overdue, but the Government have not as yet paid any claims, and therefore no part of it is brought into consideration when the Government estimate the profit made in the past year. It may be that only a small portion of that total will prove an eventual loss to the Government, but it will be evident that we must bear in mind facts like that in coming to a conclusion as to the financial results of the operations. I do not think it is reasonable to


leave those figures out of account, and merely to give us the statement that so far there is a balance on the right side.

Major Hills: I am sure it is the case now, as before, that the premiums paid not only cover the losses and the expenses of management, but also provide an insurance reserve against unascertained risks. That is a condition of all insurance.

Mr. Lewis: I was not aware of that. Perhaps the Minister in his reply will enlighten us on it. With regard to the point that risks should be evenly spread, it must be evident to the Committee that if precautions are not taken there may at some time be a disproportionately heavy loss which will upset the balance of the fund altogether. For example, it would be possible to do a large and profitable business with a particular country over a number of years, and for there then to be a complete cessation of payments from the country, owing it may be to the outbreak of a war or to an internal revolution. It might be impossible to recover the money in future, and a dead loss of great magnitude might be incurred. There has been a marked reluctance on the part of the Government to give information to the House on this question. I contend that we are entitled to have information. Last Monday I asked the following question of the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department:
What is the greatest total liability of the British Government at the present time in respect of exports guaranteed to any one foreign country?
The answer which I received was:
In the interests of British trade, it is not considered desirable to state the amount due at any particular moment by any particular country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1937; col. 1421, Vol. 324.]
Members of the Committee will notice how deliberately disingenuous that reply is. I did not ask the name of any country. I asked that we might be told the greatest individual risk, that is to say, the greatest amount of liability outstanding in respect of any one country, no name of any country being asked for. Surely it is obvious that, if we are to form an opinion as to the risks of insolvency in this business, it is material to ask the extent of risk that we are undergoing in respect of any one country, compared with the total business done.
I would press for that information, to which, I think, we are entitled, and I hope that, before the Debate concludes, the question will be answered.
The only thing I wish to say about these proposals is that we are asked to give the Government power, in effect, to double the total amount of their operations by raising the £26,000,000 to £50,000,000. I do not think that anybody would claim, having regard to the information which has been given to us this morning, that, in addition to increasing our liabilities in that way, we should also forgo the time limit which ensures periodical parliamentary control of the matter. We were told that the Government wished not to have to come before this House at the end of five or six years, or whatever definite period it is, to ask for further powers, and, of course, to give an account of their stewardship. They desire this thing to be extended to an indefinite period. I suppose it is true to say that all Executives dislike parliamentary control, but I submit that it is for us to insist that the Executive in such matters does submit to parliamentary control. I imagine that an opportunity will arise when the Bill is before us of raising this point as a specific issue, but I wished to take this early opportunity of calling attention to it, because I think it is a matter of great gravity.

1.29 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: In replying to the points which have been raised, I would thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) for the very kind things he said, especially as he was at the Treasury when this Department in its present form was developed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) paid a well-deserved tribute to the work of the Civil servants who have run the Department so successfully with entirely new methods and new material and I entirely agree with him. They will appreciate the tribute which he paid to their successful learning of a new technique. He asked the meaning of the alteration in the words about goods. If I am in order in answering his question—the point really arises on the Bill—I would say that under our present system we can insure only consignments of goods, or the turnover of a merchant, when he limits his shipments to British goods.
It frequently happens, as a matter of practice, that a large consignment of British goods includes one or two articles of foreign manufacture. We are, therefore, proposing to take powers to cover such cases but we shall not insure the consignment where more than 25 per cent. of goods are not of British manufacture. We shall also limit the actual cover to the proportion of a merchant's shipments at the end of the year which have been of British origin. The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) also raised a question about shipping. She has for a long period been pursuing this matter with my Department, and has shown much persistence in trying to get advantages for her constituents. She was promised that the matter was being reconsidered. I am afraid it has rather slipped into the background owing to the pressure of work of the Imperial Conference, but I will give her this promise: I will personally, during the next few weeks, make a point of looking into the matter myself to see whether the position has sufficiently changed since 1931 to justify revision.
In case undue hopes may be raised, I would add, in regard to the two particular cases which she mentioned, that I am sure she realises that it does not follow, even if the ban which covered shipping were removed, that it would be possible to grant facilities in those two cases. As Poland wanted to pay in coal, I am sure she will realise that we could not accept such payment without injuring our own coal interests. Turkey was the other case. A very substantial order had been placed in this country through our facilities, but of course, as the Committee on Estimates said, we have to be self-supporting and the question of any further credit to Turkey would have to be considered with due regard to the large credit which had been granted.

Miss Ward: I think the question of payment by Poland in the form of coal was the second negotiation. The first was upon a basis of cash. I am bound to say that Poland asked for very long credit, longer, I think, than the Export Credits Department approved. When that was turned down, they started on a basis of barter. That is my recollection. As to the orders by Turkey for iron and steel, I imagined that the shipbuilding

negotiations were going on at the same time. I understand that the Export Credits Department sent out some most able Civil servants to Turkey in order that the whole agreement might be upon a sound financial basis, and that they had a most tremendous success. I am entitled to say that, if the Government could give us the same facilities for shipbuilding, the work of the Civil servants might be equally effective.

Mr. Hudson: That may or may not be so. At all events, I wanted only to give the warning that, even if the ban were removed, those facilities would not necessarily be granted.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) raised a question about surplus profits and the actual surplus accumulated on 31st March, 1936. It is quite true that my hon. Friend was given a figure of some £200,000 that was due on a particular date, but it does not necessarily follow that we shall lose the whole of that sum, or even any substantial amount, because clearly it might include accounts that were only a day or so overdue. But taking the period of the last few years during which the present scheme has been in operation, there is a surplus of some £2,000,000 which has been paid to the Exchequer, which can be regarded as a reserve against any extraordinary loss in the future. My hon. Friend asked whether we were satisfied that there was no undue risk of piling up credits in the case of any particular country, and suggested that we ought to give fuller information here in the House. I would remind him, however, that one of the conditions of carrying on this business is that it is subject to the continuous close control of the Treasury, and also that we have a very strong expert Advisory Committee consisting of independent outside persons who know British trade and who are continually looking after our operations, and we are entitled to look to them to see that the Department takes no undue risk, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, in regard to any particular item.

Mr. Lewis: Cannot my hon. Friend answer the specific question that I asked as to the greatest liability with regard to any one country at the present moment?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. I am sure that my hon. Friend, on reconsideration, will realise that to give that information would


be to give information of very considerable value to our trade competitors in other countries. It really would not help Members of the House, and I hope the Committee will agree that on balance it is desirable to continue the practice we have followed, and refuse to give the amount outstanding in respect of any particular country.

1.38 p.m.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: My hon. Friend has not dealt, except in one sentence of his opening speech, with a very important part of this Resolution, dealing with the change in the source of the amendment required for fulfilling any guarantee. In future, this is to come from the Consolidated Fund instead of from moneys voted by Parliament. I do not propose to delay the Committee further than to ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that, when the Bill comes before the House, the House will probably want to know why that change has been introduced. It is one that the House from time to time has looked upon with grave suspicion, and I think the House is entitled to know the reasons which have induced the Government to suggest the change. I would ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that, when the Bill comes before us, we should like some explanation of the reason.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

(i) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole the sum of thirty-five million pounds, as may be required for the purpose of the development of the postal., telegraphic, and telephonic systems, or for repaying to the Post Office Fund any moneys which may have been applied thereout for that purpose;
(ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer Bonds, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued or of repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued;

(iii) to provide for the payment of such terminable annuities, or of the principal of and the interest on any such Exchequer Bonds, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Major Tryon.]

1.40 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The purpose of this Resolution and of the Bill which will be founded on it is to enable the Post Office to borrow the necessary capital for the development of its telephonic, telegraphic and postal services. The details of the financial proposals are set out in the White Paper, from which it will be seen that, of the total of £35,000,000 which we are borrowing, no less than £32,000,000 will, we expect, be used for the telephone service. Hon. Members may have noticed that there is a departure from the usual wording at the end of paragraph (i), where the words occur:
or for repaying to the Post Office Fund any moneys which may have been applied there-out for that purpose.
It will be realised that the Post Office Fund, which was established under the Finance Act, 1933, receives into it the surplus of each year after the fixed amount of £10,750,000 has been paid over to the Treasury, and we are already authorised to use out of that Fund money for capital development. It may be that we shall wish to do so, but at present there is no arrangement for repaying to that Fund any moneys which we may have used for capital development, and it is the object of this addition to the usual form of the Resolution to effect such an arrangement. I ought to point out that the Post Office Fund is intended to be a reservoir, as it were, to enable us to maintain our annual payments to the Treasury even in times when things are not going too well, and if at any time we see a prospect of a considerable surplus ahead for the coming year, we endeavour to distribute that surplus in the form of improvements and concessions to the advantage of all concerned. Consequently, the sum actually in the Post Office Fund represents what we consider to be a normal and adequate sum as a reserve, and, therefore, it is necessary, should we use any of it for capital purposes, that there should be power to replace anything which has been taken out of it, so that we may


have enough money available against a "rainy day" to keep up our payments to the Treasury.
It is just two years ago since my predecessor brought in a corresponding Resolution. I ought to say here that there is a misprint in the White Paper; the proper dates in the first paragraph are 1935. What has happened is that the borrowing then authorised has only lasted for a little over two years, owing really to the development and prosperity of our undertaking. My predecessor, when he introduced the Resolution a little more than two years ago, said:
We confidently anticipate that during the next few years there will be a considerable telephone advance in this country, but if our present anticipations are exceeded—although we are prepared for a good advance—there will be no hesitation in coming to Parliament to ask sanction for further expenditure which I think is generally regarded as useful and remunerative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1937; col. 2253, Vol. 297.]
I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that the result has been that we have to come to Parliament at the end of a little more than two years to ask for power to incur more capital expenditure. That is satisfactory, because it is due to development and progress. The main fact is that telephone development since that time has exceeded all expectations. It is true that part of that development is due to the general increase in the prosperity of the country, but when I am sometimes told that the Post Office is a barometer which indicates the general prosperity of the country, I always rather object to that analogy, because I think we are something more than a barometer. A barometer has no effect on the weather, whereas we feel that we are making some contribution towards an improvement in the state of the country. For that reason I would like to give some particulars of what we have been doing, particularly in regard to telephones.
During the two financial years which have elapsed, we have added no fewer than 439,000 telephones. This has been largely due to the reduced charges for telephone extensions and certain reductions which we made to business users, but the most remarkable and sudden development of all has come from the appeal which was made to thousands of people by the free calls which I introduced last October. The grant of 50 free

penny calls a quarter seems to have struck the public imagination. It is an advantage to the small user. The man who was not quite sure what he might let himself in for if he had a telephone knows that if he does not exceed his 50 free calls £4 a year will cover his liability. That has led to an extraordinary development of the telephone since 1st October last year. Since that date the number of telephones has increased by 170,000 up to a total of 2,850,000 on 30th April last—a very remarkable figure—and we are making provision for a further increase of 250,000 in the current financial year.
I come to the question of trunk calls. In March, 1936, there were about 295,000 calls made every working day. We then introduced a maximum charge of half-a-crown for calls by day to the furthest part of this island. It was the daytime equivalent of the maximum charge for a call by night of a shilling. These simple sums, which are easily remembered, seem to have greatly added to the number of calls. Sometimes people who know it is only half-a-crown gladly take up their instruments and have 5s. worth in no time. At all events last year, owing to the simplicity of this half-a-crown maximum the number of trunk calls has increased to 339,000 every working day. That is a very remarkable development.
There is another development, or, perhaps, I ought to call it a revival, and that is in connection with the telegraph service. Just before I came to the Post Office my predecessor had introduced the sixpenny telegram.

Sir Frank Sanderson: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware that since the dialling system was introduced for several reasons, partly perhaps due to the operator, it does not always function correctly, and there is a large percentage of wrong calls. As far as I am aware, the only way of not having to pay for those calls is by advising the telephone operator that a wrong number has been given. I was wondering whether my right hon. and gallant Friend can state approximately the percentage of wrong calls, and whether it will be possible to introduce some more simple method of receiving a rebate for calls which have been incorrectly put through.

Major Tryon: I will gladly go into that and see what can be done, but, of


course, in the case of an automatic call it is the sender who usually makes the mistake. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not always!"] If you get on to the operator he will put the matter right, but it is normally a mistake made by the sender himself.
I was dealing with the question of telegrams and the fact that the telegraph service had entered into state of decline, which was depressing and financially unsatisfactory. In 15 years telegraph traffic had fallen by as much as 57 per cent. In the first month after the introduction of the 6d. telegram traffic went up by 20 per cent., in the first full year by 35 per cent., and in the second year by approximately 45 per cent., and is still showing an upward tendency. That shows that the reduction to 6d. was justified. It has not meant a profit, but it has meant that the telegraph service is more frequently used, that it is no longer declining and that there is more employment given. These increases in the telephone service, telegraph service and postal service are what bring us here to ask authority for this very large capital expenditure. Not only is it necessary to provide for new subscribers, new trunk and junction lines but for the replacement of exchange equipment and local lines. It is also needed for other purposes. We require more telegraph instruments, we want repeater stations and we want a great number of other items for the complex system of communications; capital has to be found for Post Office buildings of all kinds. I attach the utmost importance to having good buildings for people to go into, and good accommodation for the staff. Then we have great engineering works in connection with all this, heating, lighting, and so on.
Perhaps I ought to give some details of how this capital expenditure will be divided. Post Office expenditure, which was in 1934–35 £7,500,000, in the next year £10,500,000, and in 1936–37 £13,500,000, is expected in the current financial year to reach a total of just under £19,500,000, divided as follows: New telephone exchanges and extensions of existing exchanges, £3,949,000; local cables for subscriber lines and junctions, £2,536,000; subscribers' telephones, including house wiring and connections to the cable system, £3,299,000; trunk lines, including repeater stations and submarine

cables, £6,443,000; telegraph works, wireless works, postal and general service and miscellaneous works, £506,000; sites and buildings, £2,650,000, making a total of £19,383,000. An interesting point is that this programme will give employment to approximately 47,000 people for the whole year. Compared with 1936 it represents in direct and indirect labour both within the Post Office and in contractors works, an increase in personnel of about 15,000 persons.
I have no hesitation in asking the House to pass this Resolution, and I hope that I have shown that these extensive borrowing powers are needed now because development is going forward more rapidly than was originally expected. It is largely due to the friendly relations existing between the Post Office and the public, to the very helpful advice that we have had from our Advisory Committees, and, above all, to the energy and efficiency of the staff of the Post Office, with whom I am very proud to be working. It is a story of increased national development and employment and better trade, and I commend it to the Committee as a story of commendable progress.

1.54 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I think the Committee will have been interested and pleased with the right hon. Gentleman's statement in respect of the telephone service. He appears to be exceedingly pleased with himself in being able to give this report, and he has good reason for being so. But, while listening to him, it occurred to me to put this question to myself. I wonder how many within his own party share his joy at being able to make such an admirable report on what we call a nationalised or socialised service. Very few people in this country—I am sure very few who grace the benches opposite—ever pause to think of, or give any consideration whatever to, the services that are rendered by the Post Office. They use the telephone, the postal service, drop a letter into the box, give or receive a telephone message, but they never pay any heed to the principles upon which the whole service is being worked. The small consideration that is given to this Department is evidenced by the fact that this subject is relegated to the third position on the Order Paper to-day, whereas from the point of view of the


service rendered and the importance of the Department, it should have received a day to itself.
I take a delight in this Department because I am an avowed Socialist. In spite of the mental attitude of this House being anti-socialist, the Department grows and develops and exceeds all expectations. When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman go into the Department, they cannot help but feel inspired by the spirit that animates the whole of the staff, and, indeed, every employé. All take pride in their work. This goes to prove that, in spite of all the opposition that is put up by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to Socialist principles, when those principles are applied they undoubtedly lead to success, because they are fundamentally sound.

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): I do not think that we can discuss this matter on this particular Resolution. If the hon. Gentleman desires to raise that point, is must he upon the Post Office Vote.

Mr. Viant: I am sorry if I have digressed, but I was so delighted with the success of the telephone Department that I could not help transgressing by bestowing my congratulations upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman, and the members of the Department. It is an undoubted success, and the fact that he is having to come to this Committee and ask for another £35,000,000 for the purposes of capital development is alone a testimony to the success of the Department. The error in the White Paper caused me no end of searching. The insertion of the year 1935 instead of 1936 caused me to look for the wrong records. However, I soon discovered that an error had been committed, and I am pleased that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has explained the matter to the Committee. The Committee, if they appreciate the departure which is being made in the White Paper of allocating the Fund in such a way that it can be drawn upon readily, possibly entailing less book-keeping, will agree that it will be an undoubted advantage to the Department, and will be pleased to note this new departure. When the amount of £34,000,000 was granted on the last

occasion in 1935 it was anticipated that that sum would take the Department up to the Autumn of 1938, and, therefore, the advance on the anticipated date is considerable. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that that is largely due, possibly, to improved trade, and I think that the services rendered by the Department have, to a certain degree, probably facilitated the improvement in trade. It acts and re-acts in that regard.
In spite of the development having exceeded all expectations, it will be necessary for me to put a few questions. Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman given any consideration to the possibility of the Fund being depleted rather sooner than anticipated by virtue of an increase in prices? I rather expect that prices for telephone equipment will have increased, as prices have gone up in respect of almost everything else. That fact, in itself, would account in some degree, I hope not in a very great degree, for the sum being depleted rather earlier than expected. If that has been the case, I should like to know to what extent. The Department has been able to reduce rentals, but if the prices of equipment are rising, it will mean that the Department will incur considerably more capital cost. That, in itself, would necessitate the reviewing of the rental charge, and would undoubtedly react upon the development of the Department. The Committee should give some consideration to that aspect of the business, and I hope that at least the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Department have already given considerable attention to it. In any case, it is a point worthy of consideration, and one that I hope will be considered, if it has not already been considered, by the Department. The capital cost—I am speaking as an outsider—must, of necessity, be increased. The cost of building must be up at least 10 per cent. There is ample evidence of that, if one takes the case of building materials. There have been slight advances in wages in connection with the building trade.
I should like to know, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to inform the Committee, what, increased expenditure has been incurred in connection with plant. When we speak of telephone plant we visualise the enormous amount of plant installed in a modern


telephone exchange, which must necessitate a great amount of capital expenditure. It will be interesting to know whether the Department has been buying raw materials on a large scale. The right hon. Gentleman has been in a position to be informed by his colleagues in the Cabinet in respect of their rearmament policy, and such like. If he has been so informed he ought to have been able to buy a considerable amount of the material that is used in engineering works of his own Department—what one might term raw material. If that had been done, it would have been of great advantage to his Department, and would have avoided what, I fear, must be a rise in rentals, perhaps not in the near future but before any great space of time has elapsed.
If it were possible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to adopt safeguards whereby telephone users and others using services rendered by his Departmen would avoid the rigging of the market and causing a general increase in the price of raw materials, it would be a very great advantage. I am sure that the Committee would be pleased to know if anything could be done in that direction. That is a subject which is troubling the minds of many people at the present time, and as a business man responsible for a large Department it ought to be agitating the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's mind somewhat, seeing that he has the interests of his Department at heart. I am informed that considerable delay is being experienced by his Department in obtaining raw materials. I believe there is considerable delay in the installation of telephones. The reason given—I will not say the excuse offered—by his Department is that the Department is confronted with considerable difficulty in obtaining the equipment necessary for the installation. I put a question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as to whether he could give the House the reasons for the time which had to elapse before an installation could be effected, compared with 12 months ago. The reply on that occasion was fairly satisfactory, and if a change has taken place in that regard owing to the inability of the Department to obtain equipment more readily, the Committee would welcome the information.
I pass now to another rather important subject, that of storms. A considerable

amount of expenditure is incurred annually through storms. Fortunately, we are not subjected to great storms every year, but periodically we are confronted with considerable storms. Last year a great deal of plant throughout the country was broken down as the result of storms. When I was in the Department we had a huge storm—at that time we used to have huge storms in this House—and a considerable amount of plant was broken down, more especially in the Peak district. It occurred to me that, seeing the Department was continually incurring an enormous amount of expenditure for replacements in the Peak area, it would be worth while to consider the advisability of putting more and more of their plant underground. When I left the Department the whole subject was being considered. It may be that the expenditure would be too great, but it would be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman would make a survey and find out what expenditure has been involved in replacements in that area during the last 10 years. Perhaps that information might persuade him that it would be to the advantage of the Department and everyone concerned to adopt the policy that I have suggested. It is a practical proposition and a question of economics. I am certain that it would wipe out a considerable amount of the delay that is experienced at a time when most people are keenly anxious to use the services, and at a time when the services are more required than on ordinary occasions.
It has come to my notice that there is not only a considerable amount of delay, but a considerable amount of expense involved in installing the telephone system in the large blocks of flats that are being erected in London and the large cities. Has the Department considered the advisability of having a conference with members of the Institute of British Architects for the purpose of placing before them the advantage and advisability of their being prepared, when arranging for the construction of buildings, to see that ducts, troughs or channels are put into the buildings. That would make it so much easier to put in the telephone wires where a large number of telephones are being installed. The suggestion is worthy of consideration. The subject has been pursued in America, and in one or two Continental countries, and if it has not already been considered by


the Department, I offer it as a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. It would help to reduce the cost of installation.
When I was in the Department I put a question on one occasion as to what the Department considered to be the approximate capital outlay of installing a telephone in an average house. I am quoting from memory, and my memory may have failed me, but I think the sum was about £100 of capital expenditure. It is not merely a question of the instrument and the wires from the street into the house, such as one gets when an electric supply is installed, but it means that a pair of wires has always to be available for that telephone installation. If the capital expenditure amounted to that in 1930, it would be interesting to know just what the capital expenditure is now. The average telephone-user seldom attaches any importance to the enormous capital cost involved in installing telephones. If the facts I have asked for could be given, I feel sure that the telephone subscriber would appreciate more how much capital the State is putting into the telephone system. I would like to ask whether the Department has any new scheme in mind for the purpose of increasing the use of the telephone in rural areas—

The Deputy-Chairman: That subject would be more appropriately raised on the Estimates, than on this Resolution. We are not now discussing the General Post Office Estimates.

Mr. Viant: I have raised these points because they involve capital expenditure. They are not questions as to hours of labour or working conditions, but they involve definite capital expenditure, and this really is the only occasion that we have for discussing capital expenditure in that regard.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member has been travelling rather wider than the Resolution which is under discussion.

Mr. Viant: I have referred to telephones in the rural areas because I am aware of the enormous capital expenditure involved in the development of this service. I have raised the matter in order to elicit information as to the proportion of capital expenditure used for the purpose of rural development as against urban development. At the present

time a large number of people in the rural areas feel that they are not getting their due share of capital expenditure from the Department. If we could have an assurance on the matter, the Committee, and more especially those who represent rural areas, would appreciate it.
I would ask a question on another subject. Has anything been done to implement the recommendations of the committee that was set up in 1928 when the Holborn explosion took place. It will be remembered that gas had accumulated in the tunnels under Holborn, and caused a serious explosion for which an attempt was made to hold the Post Office responsible. But it was an escape of gas over which the Post Office had no control, and the Post Office could not he saddled with the whole responsibility for the disaster. About a fortnight ago I read in the press a report in which it was stated that two manhole covers on Wimbledon Broadway had blown up and only by luck missed injuring two pedestrians. Was that explosion in any way due to an accumulation of gas?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member really must not pursue that subject on this Resolution.

Mr. Viant: It involves the instaliation of an automatic fan in those tunnels or ducts.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is purely a matter of administration, and it must be raised on the Post Office Vote.

Mr. Viant: I, of course, obey your ruling, but as the matter involves capital expenditure I thought I was in order in raising it. I see from the Resolution that £3,000,000 is to be used for the postal and telegraph services. I gather that in the main it will be used for the telegraph service. It would not go very far with the postal services. I would like a little enlightenment on the subject. If the greater part of this sum is to be used for the telegraph service, can the right hon. Gentleman say for what development that sum is to be used? The Committee has been happy to hear that the telegraph service has somewhat improved since the inauguration of the 6d. telegram. I think the 6d. telegram was a good idea and that it has come to stay. More and more people seem to be availing themselves of the special greeting telegrams and the telgrams at the cheaper rate. I presume


that the teleprinter is helping in the development. These points are, I hope, of sufficient importance to call for some useful information from the right hon. Gentleman. I offer my congratulations to the Department on the admirable manner and spirit in which they have pushed forward the telephone business, as they push forward to the utmost of their ability all other departments of business.

2.18 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Waiter Womersley): May I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), who occupied the position that I now hold, for the very important questions that he has put before us. I would thank him because we get so little opportunity of discussing this great Department of State, the Post Office. I would remind him that after all that is the fault of his own leaders, because, as he knows, the Opposition has the power to select the subject for discussion on Supply Days. I can assure him that both the Postmaster-General and myself have been hoping and longing that the Opposition Leader would decide to have a whole day's Debate on the postal service. I rather think that that has not been possible because the Opposition realised that there is so little to criticise. An Opposition is supposed to criticise, and hon. Members opposite say "What is the good of having this Department before us when there is nothing to criticise" If I dared I would like to enter into a little discussion of what the hon. Member was pleased to call a nationalised service. This has been a monopoly since the days of Charles I. It is a complete monopoly, with no foreign competitors, and it has not to compete in the export markets of the world. May I remind the hon. Member also of the fact that at the present moment—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member is a little out of Order now. We had better leave this matter to be considered on the Estimates.

Sir W. Womersley: My hon. Friend raised the question of increased costs. I think he is rather inclined to the opinion that we are paying largely increased costs for plant and equipment, because he fears the increases in the cost of raw materials and labour, and also there is at the back of his mind the idea that firms are now

making armaments for the Government who would otherwise be engaged in working for the Post Office. I am sure he will be pleased to know that as far as automatic exchanges are concerned, on which we are spending a lot of money, the costs are actually down by 2½ per cent., and when we come to internal plant, the general price level shows a drop of 2 per cent. As regards external plant there we are up by 18 per cent., but I do not think this can be considered a very big rise if you consider what is happening in the world as regards the price of raw materials. I have gone into this matter carefully because it interests me, and I find that this 18 per cent. increase is almost entirely due to the increased price of copper and lead, that is, a world price increase. We are suffering along with the rest of the world.

Mr. Viant: And you use a lot of it?

Sir W. Womersley: Indeed, we do. We are watching the markets very carefully, and I think it will be found that our percentage increase is less than that of any other business in the country. The hon. Member also asked a question about the cost of buildings and said that it was bound to increase. The cost has, in the last five years, gone up by 15 per cent., due to an increase in wages and the cost of materials. He also asked what we were doing to anticipate increased costs in the future—had we done anything in the way of buying in advance? I can tell him that it is not the policy of the Department—I am sure he knows it, because the policy was just the same when he was at the Post Office—not to go in for speculative or indiscriminate buying, but we are watching the markets carefully, and are covering ourselves as far as it is possible to do so. We have safeguards which, I think, could well be copied by other Departments. I have gone into this matter, because I was fearful that we might have to pay, so to speak, through the nose. Our safeguards are, to my mind, without doubt the best that any Department could have. I would not like to disclose them, because they might be copied, and it may be that those with whom we are doing business might get to know too much, but I can assure the hon. Member that our safeguards are really good.
The hon. Member also raised the question of communications between


North and South, and mentioned that, owing to the existence of overhead lines, there was a disturbance of communications owing to storms and damage. We are doing what we can to put more cables underground. At the present moment between London and Scotland there are 94 circuits, and, in addition, 30 are in the course of being provided. We try to put as many as possible underground. In fact, 90 per cent. of the total Post Office wire mileage is underground, so that the hon. Member will realise that a great advance has been made in the last year or two on the conditions which prevailed when he was at the Post Office. This proportion is larger than that of any other country in the world. We lead the world in underground cables.
I should like to pay a tribute to our engineering staff for the way in which they deal with storm damage, which is considerable at times. During last year £116,000 has had to be spent on repairs caused by storm damage, and our engineering staff endeavour to put anything which has been disturbed by storms right as quickly as possible. That is a tribute which, I think, should be paid to them for their good work. The hon. Member asked whether we were also in touch with architects in the case of large new buildings to be erected, and whether we have any arrangements for the installation of our services without having to do a lot of alterations afterwards. We are constantly in touch with the architects of any large buildings in the matter of providing telephone facilities, and there is a half page notice on the subject in the London Telephone Directory. I should like to send him our official book on the subject, which I am sure, he will accept, in which he will get all the information.
He mentioned something about the average cost of the installation of a telephone, and stated that the figure was somewhere about £100 in 1931. I am glad to tell him that, owing to the increase in business and the better contracts we have been able to place for equipment, the cost is now about £70—a little less. I think that figure will be considered a good one. I agree that it is a wise thing that the public should know how much capital expenditure is involved in installing a telephone. There is included in this Resolution a considerable sum for rural

telephones, the supply of kiosks and automatic exchanges, to give rural areas equal facilities with urban districts. It is rather interesting to notice how people in rural areas have appreciated the various concessions which have been made. What was known as the Jubilee Kiosk Scheme was inaugurated in 1935, and 840 of these have been erected up to April this year, and we have 150 remaining to be paid for out of this capital expenditure.
The Ter-centenary concession will mean the provision of 10,000 kiosks. The general tariff reduction, including an allowance of 50 free calls, was given to rural subscribers as well as to the others, and the abolition of the extra mileage, charge for subscribers within a radius of three miles of an exchange, benefited rural users to a remarkable degree. I will give hon. Members the latest figures I have to show the growth and the necessity for more capital expenditure. In 1933, there were 165,989 subscribers in rural areas, whereas in 1936, there were 221,466. If one takes the actual number of telephones, since in some cases there is more than one telephone in a house, the figures are more remarkable still. In 1933, there were 209,948 telephones, and in 1936 there were 281,651. The rate of increase in the rural areas has even been greater than that in the urban areas. I think the hon. Member for West Willesden will agree that we are not by any means neglecting the rural areas.
The hon. Member wanted to know how the £3,000,000 required for the Postal and Telegraph services would be distributed, and said that he thought most of it would be spent on the telegraph side. The figures are as follow: £400,000 goes to the telegraph side, and £2,600,000 goes to the postal side. It is clear that the postal side will not be neglected. We are not neglecting any side of this business. My right hon. Friend does not hesitate to ask for sanction for money to be spent on improvements, because he is keen to see the service improved. The hon. Member for West Willesden asked about the Holborn fire—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a matter which must be dealt with on the Estimates.

Sir W. Womersley: I will communicate with the hon. Member on that point. My right hon. Friend informs me that we are to have a day for the Post Office Esti-


mates this year, and I assure the hon. Member that there will be adequate replies to all his questions on that occasion. I hope hon. Members are satisfied that we are asking for a reasonable sum. We are asking for a sum which will be expended in investments on behalf of our shareholders, the general public. Due to the general improvement in trade throughout the country, brought about by good, sound Government policy, due to the better terms and conditions offered by the Post Office to its customers and to the splendid work of the officials in the Department and the staff generally, the service has become so popular that we have to go on spending money on capital matters. Those are the reasons we have to ask for this money, and I think they are good and sufficient ones.
The hon. Member for West Willesden asked whether the Government's rearmament programme was making any substantial difference to the Department in the matter of purchases, and whether any large portion of the money for which we are asking will have to go in payment of increased charges on that count. Our experience so far has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the effects of the rearmament programme on our purchases is very small. We think that by careful watching and by using our best business acumen we can avoid having to pay anything in the way of excessive prices, and I am satisfied that the Committee, in voting this money, may rest assured that those who are in charge of the Department and those who are working in it will see that the Government gets value for this money.

2.40 p.m.

Mr. T. Henderson: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a small part of the money which is to be voted may be used to remove a very serious grievance of the traders on the southern side of the City of Glasgow. Twenty years ago the traders there wrote to the Department asking that the Saturday delivery should be assured to them before the business premises closed at 12 o'clock.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a matter of capital expenditure, but one of administration, and the hon. Member must raise it on the Post Office Estimates.

Mr. Henderson: I am trying to show that it is not due to excessive expendi-

ture that this is denied to the traders in that particular part of Glasgow. Twenty years ago the reply given to the traders there was that the deliveries could not be better because it would cost £3,000.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a question of capital expenditure. We are not now dealing with the administration of the Post Office. The hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunities of raising that matter on the Post Office Estimates.

Mr. Henderson: I know that I shall have an opportunity then, but so many questions have been raised which seemed to me to be entirely out of order, that I thought I could raise this question also.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to he reported upon Monday next.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it is expedient—
(1) to amend the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1935, and to provide for the amendment of the superannuation scheme framed under the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Acts, 1919 to 1935,—

(a) so as to permit the surrender of part of a teacher's or educational organiser's superannuation benefits and, in return for such surrender, the grant of a pension to a spouse or dependant, or of an annuity to the teacher or organiser and a pension to a spouse;
(b) so as to make further and better provision for the payment of contributions when service is discontinued and the contributor is abroad, and for the treatment of periods of absence abroad as periods of contributory service or of service within the meaning of the said superannuation scheme, as the case may he; and
(c) so as to extend paragraphs (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section twenty-one of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, to educational organisers; and
(2) to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Lindsay.]

2.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I believe this is an agreed Resolution. There are three short points which I would like to make. The first is that the Resolution enables retiring


teachers to be allowed to surrender part of their pension in return for the granting to the spouse or dependants of a pension actuarily equivalent to the part surrendered. This has been asked for by the teachers, and it is exactly the same as the provision already in force in the Civil Service. The second point is that this has been asked for by the British Council. My noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has taken some interest in this question, and my own experience in the East and in the Dominions makes me particularly glad to see this provision inserted. The provision enables a teacher who is absent abroad on service, appointed as a teacher, whether in a British Dominion or Mandated Territory, or in a foreign country, to have the advantage of the pension not only for four years, but for five years, and there may be a further extension in special cases. Thirdly, the Measure extends not only to teachers, but also to organisers. It is not expected that any additional charge will be involved in the first two points, although there may be some slight increase in respect of the third.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Cove: As the hon. Gentleman has said, this Resolution relates to a Measure which has been agreed upon between the teachers and the Board of Education, and I wish to thank the Department for the way in which they have received the representations of the National Union of Teachers on this matter. I may say that already there seems to be a very keen desire to get the Bill, to which this Resolution relates, on to the Statute Book. I understand, too, that the Scottish teachers have been trying to secure that there shall be some curtailment of the period of time which will elapse between putting the Measure on the Statute Book and bringing it into operation. That, I am informed, is not regarded as a practicable proposition, but I do not propose to stress that point now.
I would like to express the hope, however, that everything will be done to expedite the passage of the Bill. Undoubtedly it will fill a gap which now exists in the superannuation scheme, and will help teachers to make the provision which they desire to make for their dependants. I understand that the Estimates for the Department will be down for consideration on Monday next, and if I have the privilege of being called during

that discussion, I shall probably appear in the role of a rather severe critic of the Board of Education. But this afternoon I wish to thank the Board for what they have done in regard to this matter. I also wish to take this opportunity of welcoming the hon. Gentleman as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board. I can assure him that there is a lot to be done in his new office. His predecessor has left him a lot of administrative work to do. I understand that in days gone by the hon. Gentleman was keenly interested in education and actually wrote a book on the subject. I hope, therefore, that we shall see an era of extension and not of contraction while he is in that office.

2.49 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Morrison: I wish to join with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) in offering my congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary on his promotion to that office and in hoping that all success will attend his efforts in his new sphere. It is interesting to me to see a Scotsman occupying that position and, speaking on behalf of the Scottish teachers, I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman, his former chief and the Department for what they have done in the removal of what was undoubtedly a defect, what one might almost call a blot in an otherwise excellent pensions scheme—for it is an excellent scheme as far as it goes. I should like also, if the matter is not already beyond remedy, as suggested by the last speaker, to ask whether it would not be possible so to expedite the passing of the Measure or to antedate its coming into operation, that the very considerable number of teachers who expect to retire between the end of this month and September next may be able to participate in its benefits.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

PHYSICAL TRAINING AND RECREATION BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 4.—(Extension of powers of local authorities.)

2.51 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out "camping sites or,"


and to insert "or camping sites or for the purpose of."

This Amendment is not even a drafting Amendment, but is designed solely to deal with a question of grammar.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Supplemental provisions as to exercise of powers by local authorities.)

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, to leave out from "concerned," to "shall," in line 15, and to insert:
the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, relating to the compulsory acquisition of land by means of such an order.
This Amendment is intended to ensure that within the area of London commons and open spaces shall not be jeopardised.

Amendment agreed to.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I am very happy to be able to make my first speech for the Board of Education on a Bill which is as important as it is non-contentious. I think that fact is partly due, at any rate, to the excellent start given to it by my right hon. Friend who is now the President of the Board of Trade. I can think of no Measure introduced since the War on which I would more gladly speak than this Measure. The Bill is designed simply to give statutory authority to those parts of the scheme published in the White Paper which cannot be carried out by administrative measures, and the Bill has two main objects. In the first place, it gives statutory authority to the setting up of certain administrative machinery. The framework has actually been set up in advance of legislation, and I think it is well known. It consists of two parts: First, a National Advisory Council of 31 members, under the chairmanship of Lord Aberdare, and, secondly, a Grants Committee of three members, under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Pelham. These bodies were set up on 1st March last, and the larger body has had three full meetings and the other body, the Grants Committee, has had eight meetings. The second object of the Bill is to enable grants to be paid by the Board of Education, on the recommendation of this

Grants Committee, to local authorities and to local voluntary organisations for providing various facilities.
I think the House would like to know what has happened since the last discussion on this subject. Action has been taken on four points—firstly, the framework of the local committees; secondly, publicity and propaganda; thirdly, the consideration of various technical questions relating to physical training; and, lastly, consultation with the Central Council of Recreative Physical Training and the National Playing Fields Association on the conditions under which these various grants can be made. This is rather dull, but I should explain that there are three committees. There is a local organisation committee, there is a propaganda committee, and there is a technical policy committee, and each committee has met three times since we last discussed this matter in the House.
The first committee, the committee on local organisation, has been considering the general functions, the areas, the size of these local committees, and the method of appointing them, and a great deal of preliminary work has been done, so that I hope these bodies will begin work by the summer holidays, and I also hope that they will include some young people among their members. The second committee, the committee on propaganda, has been reviewing the various channels of publicity and intends to start an intensive campaign in the autumn. It has given special consideration to films, and I am glad to see that those excellent frames of the Empire Marketing Board have found such good use and that the posters are being exhibited from May to September. I only wish we had the whole 1,600 of them, because they have excellent places and points of vantage throughout the country.
The third committee is a committee on the more technical side of this recreational activity, and has been considering the question of a national college. It has gone a good way and has done very valuable spade work on this question, but what is to me more important is the question of research. Finally, the grants committee has gone very fully into the position of the Central Council of Recreative Physical Training, and I am very glad to say that this body, which has done a lot of hard work in humble


quarters, has had given it a grant to maintain the efficiency of the office, to appoint additional organisers, and to arrange demonstrations, so that before any training college is started it has given money to the body which can most efficiently start the training of teachers and the setting in motion of the various schemes of demonstration throughout the country.
A very similar procedure is being followed in regard to the National Playing Fields Association. We realize that in this case the question how grants can be made to the association, acting as agents for the Government, towards the provision of new playing fields, has to be carefully examined. One of the first points which the Grants Committee has considered—and I am glad to see that it has made considerable progress—is the preparing of a scheme for the various types of facilities for which it will recommend grants by the Board if and when the Bill becomes law. Thus no time has been lost, and as soon as statutory powers have been given, applications can begin to be considered by the Grants Committee straight away. That is very important.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by "types of facilities"?

Mr. Lindsay: I cannot give any details, but there will be a great variety of organisations and of types of facilities for which grants can be made, and I imagine they will have to make out a list of priorities. They will have to say, "We are going to concentrate on this type of thing in certain areas." It is simply to have a groundwork plan so that they can start straight away. So much for the machinery, which may seem a little complicated, but which, I can assure hon. Members, is in essence very simple. There is no question, to my mind—and I speak with some experience of East London and of some of the coal mining areas both in Wales and in Scotland—that there is a great unsatisfied demand in this country for facilities for playing fields, for equipment, for leaders, and for money, and until this Bill becomes law it is nobody's specific business to meet that demand, although scores of excellent individual efforts, both by

voluntary societies of which we all know and by local authorities, have been going on for some time.
What we aim to do is to stimulate club life and voluntary endeavour, two of the most precious suggestions that we have had. We aim to build up a new leadership of trained men and women. We have not got anything like enough at present, and we aim to inspire the whole nation with a great ideal. That ideal is personal fitness. I do not believe there is any need to qualify that ideal on any moral ground, but if I am asked, "Fitness for what?" my only reply is, "Fitness for the greater enjoyment of life." Healthy homes and fresh food are all important, but they are not the subject of this Bill. I have been able to play most games since I was able to walk, but what has been a normal development for most of us here has been denied to thousands, even millions, of our fellow countrymen. We cannot rest content until every child in the country has equality of access to all that is meant by physical education and has an equal chance to become a healthy citizen and to feel the glow of fitness. This is a measure of positive health, a measure to help to free people from what Dr. Jacks called "physical bondage." My Noble Friend and I will spare no trouble to make this Bill a success. I believe that the need is for action. I should like to thank all parties in the House for their spontaneous co-operation. On the Committee there were members of every party, and I suppose the time taken by this Bill in Committee was almost a record. I thank hon. Members for their spontaneous co-operation, and I commend the Bill through the House to the whole nation.

3.7 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I am glad to have the opportunity of conveying my congratulations to the new Minister on coming to a Department which has previous interests for him, and which, from the ideas he has just expressed, will be one where we know he will be happy. He began his explanation of this Bill by saying that it had been non-controversial. That depended mainly on my friends and I, for we have offered no obstruction to the Bill. At the same time, there are certain dangers about it which I have expressed


before but to which the hon. Gentleman has not referred. I will point them out once again to him in order that he may bring his mind to bear upon them. We have to remember that this Bill has not very large sums of money to expend when you come down to any particular area—£2,000,000 capital expenditure and about £150,000 annual expenditure. If you ask what that means in any of our constituencies, it means that each constituency will get £3,000 capital expenditure and about £200 a year annual expenditure for the whole constituency. Therefore, we have to be particular as to whether the money in this Bill is going in those directions in which it will give the greatest return.
My main apprehension about the Bill is that it has rather followed the line of least resistance. It has taken the existing organisations. It has made them the basis of the new structure and has given them money to spend. As a matter fact, the existing organisations have concentrated themselves mainly on one class of the community—the clerical class, office workers and black-coated workers. Well over three-quarters of them have catered for this class, because it is a class which has demanded them. It is the sedentary class, having a bit of time to spare in the evening and a bit of money to spare. It is not, however, the class with the greatest need or the class whose physical fitness is of the lowest standard. It is rather better off in wages than the working-class and a great proportion of it has had greater advantages in early life. What I asked myself as soon as I saw the Bill was, "What is it going to do for, say, the girl in a mill who works all day?" Nothing I have heard satisfies me that that section of the community will be the one which will get the most benefit from it and that was why I asked what kind of facilities the Bill provided. The Minister has spoken of the various councils which are to help him to work the Bill, and we are grateful to them, but they are representative largely of middle-class athletes and from the point of view of the class I am considering I am not sure that these sprinters, sloggers, pugilists and tennis stars have really given much thought and care to the problem of the anaemic mill girl, although that is the problem we have to consider.
I have come to the conclusion that the part of the Bill which ultimately will probably prove to be most valuable will be that which deals with physical education rather than with physical recreation, physical education particularly in the form of remedial exercises for those whose work is deleterious to their health. It must not be taken for granted that because young medical men engage in active physical recreation up to the age of 25 or so they do not need physical education. One of the most striking observations which have fallen from Lord Dawson of Penn is that when he has watched hikers, tennis players and even Territorials he has noted that many of them are suffering from defects of posture, stooping shoulders and bad chests, which will pay them out a little later when the health and strength of youth have passed. I have never envied great athletes from the point of view of the permanent fitness for life. When I read of the death of great athletes and note their age I come to the conclusion that they are not quite as well off as the rest of us and I am always reminded of an observation by Plato which I carried away from school, and which seems to be true in this day as in his day:
An athlete is on a slippery edge in respect of health.
I hope it will not be thought, therefore, that by providing facilities for great athletic prowess on the part of young men and young women we shall be doing the work of building up the physical health of the nation. The Minister spoke of personal fitness as the ideal at which he aimed. I imagine that a man's personal fitness, taking his life as a whole, depends a great deal more on what he does after the age of 25 than on whether he was a centre forward before the age of 25. Therefore, I think that in the long run probably the most important of the sub-committees to which the Minister referred, will be that which will engage in technical research into how health can be improved by simple processes which the ordinary man can follow out day by day in his own home.
I would ask the Minister a couple of questions on that point. I am thinking now of the ordinary citizens who have got to middle age. I have never understood why the British Broadcasting Corporation does not help them more. In Scandinavian countries, one of the


features of life, an ordinary normal feature, is that almost the whole population, up to the age of 80, does physical exercises every morning to the wireless; and a very healthy race they are. I cannot understand why, in the mornings, when the wireless is blank or gives nothing but a few cricket scores now and then, we should not be able to have physical exercises, if we want them. Another question, which perhaps is being considered is why the gramophone companies should not on a proper scale, provide little records to which we could do physical exercies, if the time of the wireless did not suit us. It would do us all good. In the end, probably a few simple things like this, developed by the technical committee, may do far more to build up the physical fitness of the nation than much more elaborate and widely advertised schemes.
Those are merely suggestions. We welcome the Bill, I may say on account of reasons which are rather larger than any contained in the Bill. The Bill calls attention to physical fitness; my belief is that, when the Bill is in operation, very large and perhaps at present unanticipated, results may follow. The result will be to raise a great issue, the whole question of physical fitness and of the standard of life of the nation, which hon. Members on this side of the House have for years been trying to bring to the attention of the nation.

3.18 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I wish to add my congratulations upon the hon. Member becoming a representative of the Board of Education. He is a young man, but is none the less suitable because of that. I believe that education is an evolutionary process of which we are only at the beginning, and we want to see men with fresh minds and new attitudes in our education departments. We would rather have the President of the Board of Education in the House of Commons, but we have a good substitute. On the other hand—I am not saying this with any sense of hostility to the hon. Gentleman—it is rather a comment that we should have to look to Scotland for our representative of the Board of Education. After all, Scotland has its own Education Department and education Debates, and it is making a new precedent that we should have had to search outside the English

Border in this respect. In many ways, Scotland leads the way in educational ideas. The hon. Gentleman has our good will. It is fortunate that he starts under the very good auspices of this Bill.
I cannot say in how many education Debates I have taken part. Invariably, even when a Minister from this side of the House has been guiding a Bill through Parliament, I have been a critic and have been busy moving Amendments, picking holes—in some cases successfully—and trying to improve the Measure.
The Bill had a harmonious passage through Committee. I think it is right to say that it has the good will of every section of the House, and we wish it good luck. I do not attach, and I am glad that the Minister himself did not attach, too much importance to the Clauses of the Bill. They are largely machinery Clauses. Its success will depend on the driving force behind it, and on the enthusiasm which it is possible to engender in the population and in the local authorities. I attach great importance to the local authorities, because, however good may be the resolutions passed by the Central Committee, or however fine their proposals are, if they cannot get the active and intimate co-operation of the local authorities no great results will follow.
There is no doubt that some—I will not say all—of the inspiration behind this Bill is what has been going on on the Continent. Great publicity has been given in this country to the campaign for improving the physique of the people in certain continental countries, not by any means confined to countries in which there is a dictatorship. Sweden, of course, has been a pioneer in physical education, but great publicity has been given to what has been done in Nazi Germany, and here I would sound a note of warning. I hope that in the experiments which are to be made the organisers will not aim at turning out robots, that they will not indulge too much in these mass drills. They are very interesting, and may actually more or less improve the physique of the people who go through that training, but they do not have the same result as the individual exercise that is gained under the British tradition of organised games.
I am not one of those who minimise the utility of those traditional games of this country, cricket and football, and everything associated with those two great


games. They do something more than merely improve the physique of those who take part in them; they are the strength and foundation of British character. Some people seem to have the impression that a love of football and cricket is confined to the great public schools and the secondary schools, but that is far from the truth. I could take hon. Members to parts of the East End of London where in almost every back street, in spite of motor cars and traffic and all the dangers of modern life, games of cricket are going on, perhaps to the disadvantage of glass windows and of the neighbours, but to the general enjoyment of the children.
Unfortunately, when these small boys grow up to the age of 14, 15, or 16, and the police are less likely to tolerate their sporting enthusiasm, they have to be content with watching other people play cricket and football, becoming mere spectators, and that is where they suffer physically. I hope that this Bill will be used to remove that disadvantage under which the mass of the people labour, and that football and cricket grounds will be available to them at reasonable prices. I think that that will do far more than any organised drills or mass physical training. If cricket pitches and football grounds can be provided for boys, and for girls also, they will find their own opportunities for physical improvement and recreation. I do not want that to be interpreted as hostile to the new Technical National College, but I hope that that National College will not be used only to turn out drill instructors. I recognise the value of drill instructors and the magnificent work that they are doing in drill halls connected with secondary and technical schools and evening institutes, but I hope that this College will have a larger conception of its obligations, and will take a larger outlook as to what physical training means. I hope it will not discourage our traditional games. Meanwhile we wish the new Bill every success. We are conscious that, for it to be a success, we must have publicity, and we hope that those men and women who agree to serve on the committee will be rewarded for their work by a general improvement in the physique of the nation.

3.27 p.m.

Marquess of Clydesdale: I should like, first, to add my congratulations to those

which have been showered on the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has introduced the Third Reading of the Bill. I think the last speaker, perhaps, slightly under-estimated the importance of organised exercises. I should like to remind the house, if the impression has been given that organised exercises are always compulsory abroad, that the organised games started in Germany before the Nazi regime on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, perhaps the country which organises big demonstrations most efficiently in Europe is Czechoslovakia, and on an entirely voluntary basis. While I welcome the national physical training scheme of the Government and the efforts that they are making to improve the health of the people as much as anyone, I should like to make a few comments on one or two aspects of the Bill and touch on one or two possible dangers to the scheme. I intend my remarks to have reference to Scotland particularly.
I think it is a mistake to lay too much emphasis on the Clauses. The Bill should be somewhat flexible. On the construction of the Bill as it stands, it would appear that the National Advisory Council is legally in rather an ambiguous position. It is composed mostly of eminent men and women who have some special knowledge or experience in physical training but they are appointed in a purely advisory capacity. One of their duties is to appoint regional committees, which will do the main work. There is no doubt that the real object of these regional committees will be to cater for the mass of the people—those who are in most need of physical training. But they will make their recommendations direct to the Grants Committee thus short-circuiting the National Advisory Council. The Grants Committee, therefore will become the one co-ordinating body in the country, and I understand from reading the Bill that this Committee has powers to make recommendations regardless of the National Advisory Council or the regional committees. I do not for a moment suggest that that will take place, because the people who are serving on these committees are public spirited, and I am certain that they will co-operate in the right spirit. But the mere fact that this is the position may have the danger of acting as a slight discouragement to members of the regional committees.
There is, as I have said, a great deal to be said for making the National Advisory Council the main co-ordinating body in the country at any rate for sometime. May I put forward a suggestion—it is important as far as Scotland is concerned—that the power of appointment and dismissal of the Secretaries of the regional committees should lie in the hands of the Advisory Council? I feel that there is a danger of regional friction unless the National Advisory Council is vested with strong centralised control. The scheme as it stands may appear very complex, but because a scheme is complex, that does not necessarily mean that it is inefficient. One of the most complex bits of mechanism in aviation is the Rolls Royce engine, and any one who has sat behind a Rolls Royce engine in the air as much as I have, will realise that it is not only a complex but a very highly efficient engine. I feel certain that this scheme can be made to work efficiently.
I now turn to a particular point of the Bill as it affects Scotland in the application Clause. The effect of paragraph 10 is that local authorities are given additional powers to providing buildings, swimming pools, playing fields for physical training. There are, however, certain limitations laid down in the case of premises that come under this category. I am referring to Clause 10, Sub-section (5) (2), in page 7, line 27, which reads:
Provided that no concern or other entertainment provided by a local authority under this sub-section shall include—
stage performances, and so forth. This particular provision, I understand, was left out in the original Bill, and has been brought in not only to bring the Scottish part into line with England, but with the main object of preventing local authorities from competing by staging various variety performances, and so forth. That may be perfectly all right, but I would ask the Minister to look into the words in line 28:
provided by a local authority.
For example, in Scotland it is customary for big schools to feature in their annual demonstrations, historical pageants and tableaux, and one might very well say that these entertainments are provided by the local authority. It is true that the ratepayers pay something, however little that may be. Furthermore, there are

entertainments provided by a local authority in which voluntary organisations take part. If the words "provided by the local authority" would make it impossible for schools to run historical pageants and so forth, and would cripple entertainments in which voluntary organisations take part, may I suggest that the Government should look into the matter with a view to making a slight alteration? Possibly in another place it may be found advisable to delete the word "provided" and put in words to this effect: "at which performers are employed to appear." Might I suggest that this might cover the case?
I have said that this scheme is complicated, but what will make for its success is the spirit with which it is laid before the public and the spirit with which the country receives it. I feel confident that those who are appointed on Committees will lay the scheme before the country in the right spirit, and that the country will receive it with that enthusiasm which will ensure its success.

3.36 p.m.

Mr. W. Astor: May I join in the general welcome of this Bill, in the welcome of the scheme of which it is a part, and in welcoming the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary introduced it this afternoon? May I take up a point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), in which he said that he understood that voluntary organisations mainly provided facilities for people of the clerical class. That may have been so in the past, but it is certainly not so now. When I was associated with the National Council of Social Service, a beginning was made with "Keep Fit" classes in Lancashire, and several thousand mill girls have been participating in physical training classes in Lancashire. In Durham there are a large number of "keep fit" classes for men and women, and in the boys' clubs in London and the Provinces where games of all sorts are provided, the members cannot be called people of the clerical class. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the voluntary societies have covered the widest range and have not been confined to a small section of society.
One of the most important things which the partners who are carrying out this scheme must remember, is the ques-


tion of kit. There is nothing more pathetic than to see people trying to do physical exercises in unsuitable clothes, and I hope that one of the first objects of the grant will be the grant of cheap and simple kit. Kit can be provided very cheaply, arid it is always tremendously appreciated. I hope that the great organisation for hiking, the youth hostel organisation, will not be left out. There is great danger that the local authority may think that this organisation does not come particularly under its aegis, that the townspeople will not want to spend money on them in the counties, and that the county people may think that they ought not to spend money on hostels for people who come from the towns. This is one of the healthiest and finest movements that the country has produced since the War, and I hope it will receive its due consideration.
If there are any hon. Members who think that organised physical training is a form of militarism, I would ask them to come with me to my constituency in Fulham where the borough council, which is a Socialist borough council, has brought in a full-time physical organiser. It was a brave thing to do as he was an ex-Army man, and it has not prevented him from organising physical classes in parks, in connection with schools, for the unemployed and for all classes. It has been a great popular success, and it can be done without any trace of militarism. If any hon. Member has any lingering feeling about militarism in this connection, I would give him a cordial invitation to come and see for himself what can be done without the slightest trace of militarism.
There is also the question of exercises by the British Broadcasting Corporation in the morning. I have heard these exercises over the wireless as they are given in America. I do not say that one always did them, for sometimes one sat in one's bath and thought of other people doing them. But the wireless did keep the subject of physical fitness in one's mind. In a country like America, where broadcasting is on a commercial basis, advertisers, who are commercial people, recognise that in providing these physical exercises they are providing a real need, and experience has shown that there is a real need. Advertisers there are very shrewd people and they know

whether they are satisfying a public demand or not. The experience in America proves that there is a public demand for physical training exercises given over the wireless.
I wish this new Council and its organisation all success. A physically-trained world is a most complicated world. There are many organisations, with different theories and different traditions, some organisations with a great deal to do and not much money, and some organisations that are perhaps in rather the reverse position. This scheme will mean a great deal of drive and a great deal of publicity. I hope that the Minister will not at any moment relax in the drive and the publicity that are necessary, and I can assure him that he will have tremendous support both in the country and in this House for anything that he may do.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Wakefield: As a Member of the National Advisory Council I am delighted, and I am sure my colleagues on the Council will be delighted, at the quick and smooth passage of this Bill to-day. During the past week a number of people have said to me, "Well, what are you doing? We have not heard much of you since you were set up." They do not seem to realise that until this Bill is passed through the House, although much spadework could be and has been done, no money is available to advance the work. The Minister has described in detail the work which has been done during the past three months by the Council and by the sub-committees which have been set up. I would add that the main work facing the National Advisory Council at this moment is the establishment of area committees. It is quite clear that our work cannot be properly done unless the area committees are properly constituted throughout the country, and that takes time. It is important, if the full co-operation and assistance of all those who will have to work with these area committees is to be obtained, that the members who serve on those committees must be very carefully chosen. But as the Minister has said, we hope to have the committees established by August, and then all will he ready for a campaign during the coming winter.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) raised a number of points, because it enables


them to be answered. His first point was a suggestion that perhaps voluntary organisations had up till now catered only for black-coated workers or those engaged in sedentary occupations. As a member of the National Playing Fields Association he will be glad to hear that the Association has provided, or helped to provide, something like 1,600 playing fields and open spaces during the 12 years of its existence. The policy which has guided the Association has been to provide open playing spaces in those very areas which he described—where the need is greatest. Neither class nor creed, age or sex is considered. It is merely a question where the need for these open spaces and playing fields is greatest. The right hon. Member also hoped that the National Advisory Council would not aim at encouraging, as he said, first-class pugilists and sprinters who can do the 100 yards under 10 seconds; in fact champion athletes of all kinds and descriptions. Speaking for myself, and I am sure also for my colleagues on the Council, our aim is to try to make the great mass of the people, young and old, physically fit, and to provide facilities for improving their general physical fitness and well-being. We do not want to get a few sprinters doing the 100 yards in 10 seconds dead; we would far rather have a million people doing 100 yards in 12 or 13 seconds. That is our objective. In this connection perhaps I may give an illustration. I hope in the years to come we shall see at our athletic meetings not a lot of prizes being given to a few individual runners and jumpers, but that we shall see whole villages and towns competing against each other, relay teams of girls, women and young men competing, so that you will have a whole town running against another town, in relay of 100 or 200 athletes. The result would not depend on the success and ability of one or two outstanding athletes but on the general excellence attained by all. I hope I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman as to our aim.
We have two objectives, first to develop throughout the country a stronger will to be fit, especially in the younger generation, and, secondly, to ensure so far as fitness can be achieved from actual exercises, that the facilities for such

exercises are readily available to everyone who desires to make use of them. These are our two main objectives. The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) hoped that we should not try to turn out mechanical robots, and that we should not stultify our national games. The objects which we have set before us are not to have great mass mechanical drill formations. We want to try to develop a desire for physical health and recreation by the encouragement of team games. I think that by playing team games you can at the same time develop mental activity as well, and thus achieve the harmonious development of body, mind and soul. That is the objective towards which our aims must be devoted. We want to see a development of community centres. We should like to see in this development the playing of games work hand in glove with the development of other social activities. I hope that this brief expression of our ideals, which I feel sure are the ideals which animate all other members of the Council, will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and that we may see them achieved in the not far distant future.
If those objects are to be achieved, the local authorities, the voluntary organisations—ranging from those concerned with adolescents and boys' and girls' clubs to those whose objects are more directly associated with physical recreation, such as the National Association of Swimmers—athletes, cyclists, those who go walking and rambling, and campers, must all play their part, and it is for their help and co-operation that we must ask if we are to make a success of the work entrusted to us. But there is more in this movement than the mere provision of open spaces and playing fields. It must be animated by an ideal, and that ideal is the achievement of the physical wellbeing, and thereby the general happiness and welfare, of the people of this country.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I wish to express my praise of the Bill on its Third Reading. I cannot say that I wish the same effects to come from it as does the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), for as I get on in life, I do not know that I want to take part in mass races of the people of my native town against the people of other towns. As we get on in life,


we should have exercise, but much more gentle exercise than that suggested by the hon. Member. There is one feature of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) which has perhaps been a little neglected by the House. The right hon. Gentleman appealed for that portion of the community which undoubtedly needs opportunities for physical recreation, and perhaps I may enlist the sympathy of the Parliamentary Secretary if I recall to him some of the experiences which I had in my younger days in the East End of London, with which apparently the hon. Gentleman is, or was, familiar. In those days the average county council schoolboy got his cricket in the summer up against a lamp-post. It is true that he also had additional facilities in the London County Council's parks, but those facilities were not all that could be desired since there were so many cricket teams crammed into a very limited area that often, as one was batting at the wicket, one was in danger not only from one's own bowler but from a bowler belonging to an adjacent team.
Even to-day, in spite of all the advance that has been made in sport and physical recreation, in the London County Council schools the cricket and football are mainly carried on by the voluntary efforts of the school teachers, who are very limited in the amount of equipment which they have provided for their boys and girls. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman that when this Bill becomes law, he should consult with what is probably the biggest education authority in this country, and see whether something more cannot be done for those county council schoolboys. I agree with the hon. baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that it would be lamentable for this country if the day should come when we neglect those national games of cricket and football. I cannot say that I look with too much favour upon mass demonstrations of sport. They may be all very well for some of us to go and watch, while sitting in a comfortable seat, but from the point of view of the young man or the young woman, the individual game is the best game of all. I would like to re-echo the request made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley that the B.B.C. should broadcast some musical records in the morning so that those of

us who wish, under great disadvantages, to do our "daily dozen" may have a better opportunity of getting out of bed and practising those few movements which give us physical fitness.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: My first duty is to thank hon. Members for the kind words of encouragement which they have addressed to me on this the first occasion on which I have spoken here on behalf of the Board of Education. A great many suggestions have been made in the course of this Debate and I think it says something for the original draft of this scheme that every point which has been raised this afternoon falls naturally to be considered by one of the three committees which are to be set up under the Bill. Some of them indeed have already been considered. The question raised by the last speaker regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation and the playing of gramophone records is to be taken up, and I am sure that the suggestion will not fall on deaf ears. I would like to hammer home the answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) about organisations for clerical workers and organisations for other classes of workers. I have had some experience of voluntary societies of this kind and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the suggestion which has been made concerning them is not true. They do cater for the very poorest. But I am also aware of the fact that even when you take into account, all the cubs and the scouts and the other organisations dealing with boys, there are still 75 per cent. of the boys of this country who do not belong to any organisation at all. That is the problem. I went out of my way in my earlier speech to say that we would not rest content until every child had equal access to physical education.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the point of my right hon. Friend was that the clubs which cater for clerical workers are much better equipped with facilities of every kind than other organisations which cater for the industrial classes.

Mr. Lindsay: Then those which are worse equipped will be able to put their claims before the Grants Committee. The provision of such things as cricket equipment and other equipment of various


kinds, will be considered by the Grants Committee. The other point which has been emphasised is the variety of methods of approach to this question. While we all wish to encourage the games which are characteristic of this country there is a great deal to be said for physical education as such. I am told by experts that at the present time we are all going about half-dead and that there a few very simple exercises which any Member of the House could take every day, and which would make a great difference to the health, the physique and the happiness of those who engaged in them. We do not quarrel with that theory at all. The right hon. Gentleman opposite expressed some doubt about utilising existing organisations. I think in this matter we must build on what we have got. I have the greatest admiration for what is being done in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Denmark

and elsewhere, but I am still convinced that we have to proceed on the basis of our characteristic British games. I am certain that if we do that and retain the spirit mentioned by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), we shall make this organisation a complete success.

Question "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at One Minute before Four o'Clock until Monday next, 14th June.